Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Edward Dunn, Esquire, Member for the County of York, West Riding (Rother Valley Division), and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained, and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords]

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:

Pontypool Gas and Water Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords]

STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Potato Harvesting (School Children)

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the resentment caused in Scotland by the circular from his Department recommending the deportation of infants from the schools in Scotland, to places outside their towns, villages and counties, for the purpose of harvesting the potato crop in, the autumn of this year; and if he will withdraw this circular.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): No circular of the kind mentioned has been issued. I assume that the hon. Member refers to the recent request to certain education authorities to invite children over 12 years of age to volunteer to help with potato lifting in some of the main growing areas where the labour available locally is insufficient to secure the crop. I have no evidence whatever that this request has given rise to resentment. On the contrary, at meetings with representatives of the, authorities concerned and of the teaching profession, general assurances of support for the scheme were freely forthcoming. In view of the vital importance of the potato crop in what will be a year of particular stringency, it is certainly not possible to dispense with the assistance asked for.

Mr. Sloan: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the circular has been taken as a recommendation, and to mean that, specifically, 2,000 school children are to be sent from Ayrshire to Fife and Dumfries for the purpose of collecting these potatoes; is he further aware fhat the Ayrshire Education Committee has refused, and does not that show that there is resentment? Will he undertake now to withdraw this circular, which is causing resentment among people in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: So far as I am aware, the only council that has declined to come into the scheme is Ayrshire. The others have agreed.

Mr. Gallaeher: Instead of the Secretary of State advising that children should be sent to do this work, will he not consult with the Ministry of Labour, in view of


the redundancy which is occurring in industry, and ask for volunteers from industry to help in this work?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir; that has been done, and it is a prior consideration to this scheme.

Mrs. Hardie: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the fact that it is the poorer children who are to be sent to work, and that the weather in October and November is very wet, he should see that they are properly equipped with boots and waterproofs?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot give precise details, but I believe that welfare arrangements such as my hon. Friend has indicated are being carefully examined in consultation with the teachers.

Mr. Shinwell: But has my right hon. Friend considered inviting some of the children from the public schools to assist in this work? [HON. MEMBERS: "They are doing so."] Will my right hon. Friend tell me how many children are being sent from these schools? What is the proportion?

Mr. Johnston: I can give no precise figures, but every possible volunteer—they are all volunteers—over 12 years of age has been invited.

Several Hon. Members: rose.

Mr. Speaker: I think that we must get on to the next Question.

Mr. Sloan: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Hydro-Electric Schemes (Inquiries)

Mr. Snadden: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now considered the objections to the Tummel-Garry Hydro-Electric Scheme and whether he intends to grant an inquiry into this matter.

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. As already announced, in reply to a Question on 29th March in another place, I have appointed Mr. John Cameron, D.S.C., K.C., Sir Robert Bryce Walker, C.B.E., and Major G. H. M. Broun-Lindsay, D.S.O., to hold an inquiry into the constructional scheme in question.

Mr. Snadden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong feeling in the county of Perth that this inquiry is being rushed, and that objectors feel that they are not being given sufficient time in which to declare their objections and instruct their counsel; and will he use his influence to have this inquiry postponed until such time as they have been able to prepare their case?

Mr. Johnston: As a matter of fact, they have had ten weeks' time between the date of the publication of the scheme and the holding of the inquiry. Moreover, we were assured that it was for the convenience of counsel on both sides that the inquiry should be held at the date and time arranged.

Captain McEwen: Could my right hon. Friend state what use it is to set up an Amenities and Fisheries Committee if no attention is going to be paid to their recommendations?

Mr. Johnston: Attention is going to be paid to their recommendations, and has been paid to them, but, on questions where there is a dispute, an inquiry has to be held to determine which side is to prevail.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Secretary of State tell us what are the qualifications of these three nominees?

Mr. Johnston: One of them is vice-chairman of the County Councils Association.

Mr. Sloan: Is that a recommendation?

Mr. Johnston: Another is a distinguished member of the Bar in Edinburgh, and the other is an ex-county clerk of Lanarkshire.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Arising out of the first part of my right hon. Friend's answer, is he not aware that the Perth County Council and other local authorities interested think that they have not had enough time, and, as we must meet the legitimate requests of local authorities, will he not consider extending the period?

Mr. Johnston: It is for the tribunal itself to determine when it will hold its sittings, but I submit that ten weeks for the preparation of the case is not insufficient.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State agree that it is the landlords in the Highlands who are responsible—[Interruption].

Mr. Snadden: As it is a question of very great importance to the whole of Scotland, would it not be better, as so much heat has been engendered over it already, not to add any more fuel to the flames?

Mr. Johnston: No fuel has been added, [Interruption.] I submit that it is an unreasonable request to expect a longer time than ten weeks in which to prepare a case.

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in setting up inquiries to consider objections to constructional Schemes put forward by the Hydro-Electric Board, he will in future have more than one Commissioner inquiring into the matter and as far as possible adopt the procedure of inquiries held to consider Scottish Private Bill Legislation.

Mr. Johnston: The composition of the tribunal to hold a public local inquiry into a constructional scheme must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the scheme. In the case of the second construction scheme now under consideration as has already been announced the tribunal will consist of three persons. The procedure to be followed at the inquiry is laid down in the Sixth Schedule to the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943.

Captain Shaw: Seeing that these schemes are confirmed by the Secretary of State's Department, and that advocates look to the Government for promotion, does he not think it would be better if the chairman was not an advocate, as lawyers may be more inclined to lick than to bite the hand they hope will feed them?

Mr. Johnston: I deprecate attacks of that kind.

Captain Shaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman forget his "History of the Working Classes in Scotland"?

Mr. Kirkwood: Another of the landlords.

Hon. Members: Order.

ELECTRICITY CHARGES, LONDON

Sir William Davison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement on the present position with regard to the large increases in charges for electricity which have been

made during the war by the Central London Electricity Company and other companies; whether any recent review of the position has taken place; and what action is being taken in the matter.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd Georģe): The Electricity Commissioners periodically review the financial position of Central London Electricity Limited and other companies. Though there has recently been some improvement in the position of the company named, I do not feel justified on the information before me in taking any action in the matter at present.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that, though the Notting Hill and other electric lighting companies advertise all sorts of electric equipment, when inquiries are made by the public as to the installation of this equipment, they are put off with various excuses including the high charges in connection with installation? Does he not think that an inquiry should be made?

Major Lloyd Georģe: If my hon. Friend will communicate with me, I shall be glad to go into it.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this company a privately-owned concern, and will my right hon. and gallant Friend not resist this vicious attack on private enterprise?

Mr. Silverman: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend explain why the charges for electricity by this private company in London are nearly three times the corresponding charges for electricity supplied by municipal undertakings all over the North of England?

Major Lloyd Georģe: My hon. Friend says the North of England. One reason is that, in 1940, the experience of electricity companies in the North of England was very different from that of companies in London. There have been evacuation and damage on a large scale here, and a great increase in the cost of equipment.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is the Minister aware that the charges of this company have been halved and that the costs of telephone calls have been doubled?

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the comparative costs of electricity in London and elsewhere in the country before the


war, and before any of these considerations applied, were always largely to the advantage of the areas outside London, and that the ratio was always nearly two to one?

Major Lloyd Georģe: I could not answer that question without notice, but I should think it would depend very largely upon the type of area which the company served.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Technical Advisory Committee (Report)

Sir Geoffrey Mander: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, what action it is proposed to take with reference to the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee on Coal Mining, Cmd, 6610; and whether, in view of widespread agreement that public control through an appropriately designed public utility company, or companies, is essential, he will introduce the necessary legislation forthwith.

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is in a position to make a statement on the Report of the Technical Advisory Committee; and what action he proposes to take in order to implement its recommendations.

Major Lloyd Georģe: My hon. Friends will appreciate that a report of this character must receive the most careful consideration before a statement can be made. There will be presented shortly a White Paper on the financial position of the coal mining industry dealing with the coal charges account, which will, I anticipate, further assist in presenting a picture of the industry at the present time.

Sir G. Mender: In coming to a conclusion on the matter, will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that there is a large measure of support in all parties for a settlement on the lines indicated in my Question?

Sir W. Davison: Is the Minister aware that no estimate of the cost involved was given in this report; and has he made up his mind as to the probable cost involved in the recommendations of the committee?

Mr. Foster: How many more reports must we have before some action is taken to put the industry on a proper basis?

Major Lloyd Georģe: The hon. Member will appreciate that there has never been a report of this sort made before. It is a very important report, because it is fundamental to, whatever approach is made to the settlement of this problem, and I am certain that nothing but good could come from the examination of this and other reports which I hope will be published. With regard to the cost which would be involved by the proposals in the report, that is, the other investigations and amalgamations necessary, it will be some time before we know what the costs will be.

Railway Wagons (Shortage, Nottinghamshire)

Mr. Keelinģ: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been called to the serious loss of coal output in the Nottinghamshire district during the last three months owing to the lack of railway wagons; how this compares with the loss in the country as a whole; and what steps he has taken to improve the supply of wagons in this district.

Major Lloyd Georģe: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the serious loss of output which has occurred in the Nottinghamshire district during the last three months owing to the lack of railway wagons. This loss represents about 28 per cent. of the loss in the country as a whole. These losses are accounted for mainly by railway operational difficulties arising from a number of causes including severe weather and heavy sickness among train crews. I am in constant touch with my noble Friend the Minister of War Transport and the railway authorities on this matter, and I am glad to say in the last few weeks there has been a substantial decrease in losses from this cause.

Mr. Cocks: Can the Minister say how many tons he estimates have been lost, how many miners are unemployed in Nottinghamshire, and how much has been paid in wages without any results?

Major Lloyd Georģe: I cannot answer that question without notice. It varies from week to week, and the greatest loss occurred during the period of very severe weather when no work at all was possible. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know, I will get the figures for him.

PETROL ALLOWANCE (SUMMER HOLIDAYS)

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has considered the possibility of granting a special petrol ration for travel during the summer holidays.

Major Lloyd Georģe: The petrol situation is kept under constant review but I regret that present conditions preclude any relaxation of the existing restrictions on Civilian consumption.

Sir I. Albery: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether, if the war in Europe terminates before that time, he will then reconsider the matter?

Major Lloyd Georģe: I did say in an answer to a previous Question that the decision depends on the situation at the time, and I am constantly looking at the matter. The position is governed by the situation.

NEWFOUNDLAND SERVICE PERSONNEL (HOME SERVICE)

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give particulars of the home leave scheme now approved for the Newfoundland regiments.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The scheme provides that all men in the two Artillery Regiments who have been absent from Newfoundland for 4½ years shall be entitled to 28 days of home leave exclusive of time spent in travelling, or, in the case of soldiers with wives or parents in this country, to a similar period of leave here, if they so prefer. Subject to reinforcements being available and to operational requirements, a total of too men will be allowed to return to Newfoundland each month, 68 being taken from the regiment in Italy, 17 from the Heavy Regiment in Western Europe, and 15 from the Newfoundland Royal Artillery Depot in this country.

Mr. Hoģģ: May I ask if my hon. Friend will consider an extension of the benefits of this welcome scheme to Newfoundlanders in other units, including the R.A.F.?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I will go into that question.

CLOTHING (GIFT PARCELS FOR EUROPE)

Miss Rathbone: asked the President of the Board of Trade how long the question has been under consideration of permitting parcels of clothing of under 5 lbs. each to be sent to France to other than French nationals, as have long been allowed to be sent to French people through the French Red Cross; whether this is now permitted; and, if so, through what agency can the parcels be sent.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): The British Red Cross first approached the Board of Trade on this matter in February. Arrangements for a gift parcel service through the British and other Red Cross organisations to France, and other liberated countries, were completed last week and will be put into effect as soon as the Red Cross organisations are ready to handle the parcels.

Miss Rathbone: Will the scheme include large-scale consignments for general redistribution as well as individual parcels; and how soon will it be time for donors to send in their individual parcels, as many are anxious to avail themselves of the opportunity?

Mr. Dalton: We shall have to issue a Press announcement on the scheme when it has all been settled with the Red Cross organisations concerned. There is no delay as far as my Department is concerned. We are prepared to operate the scheme as soon as the Red Cross organisations are able to accept parcels, which are expected to be many. It is intended that parcels shall be sent from individual to individual, and not in bulk consignments.

ASSURANCE COMPANIES (LIFE POLICIES)

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of life policies of the value of £1,000 or under estimated to be in force issued by assurance companies other than industrial assurance societies.

Mr. Dalton: Under the Assurance Companies Act, 1999, life assurance companies are required to state, at least every five years, tile number of life policies and the total amount assured, but they are not required to state the amount assured


under each policy or the total number of policies for £1,000 or less. There are about 6,250,000 current policies covering about £2,500,000,000, issued by companies established in the United Kingdom.

Sir W. Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the hardships suffered by patentees in having the period of time for which the patent was granted curtailed by reason of the war and whether steps will be taken to extend patents taken out during the war for the period of time during which the war has made them inoperative.

Mr. Dalton: Under Section 18 of the Patents and Designs Act, a patentee, who has suffered loss or damage by reason of hostilities, may apply to the Court for an extension of the term of his patent. The Patents Committee, which I appointed fast year, have made an interim report dealing with this point, and I have arranged for this report to be published and for copies to be available in the Vote Office on Thursday next.

Sir W. Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these patentees have been deprived for nearly six years of the profits they were entitled to receive under their patents? Surely it is only fair that the time for which a patent is valid should be extended for a like period?

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the report. This is a good Committee and they have gone into the matter very carefully.

Retail Business Licences

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of licences issued to date under the Location of Retail Businesses Order since its inception to individual unit traders, branches of multiple shops and co-operative societies, respectively; and the number of transfers of licences which have been made to multiple stores and co-operative societies from independent traders.

Mr. Dalton: Between 1st January, 1942, when the Location of Retail Businesses Order came into force, and the 31st De-

cember, 1944, 9,329 licences were granted for the opening of new retail businesses. Of these, 218 were granted to multiple stores; 73 to co-operative societies; and 19,038 to other traders. During the same period, 9,197 licences were granted to traders who had acquired the goodwill of existing businesses. Of these, 213 were granted to multiple stores; 151 to cooperative societies; and 8,833 to other traders.

Mr. Godfrey. Nicholson: Does this mean one licence per shop?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

Clothing Coupons (Released Service Personnel)

Captain Duncan: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many clothing coupons are to be issued to service personnel on demobilisation of release from the forces after the war with Germany.

Mr. Dalton: This matter is now being considered by the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Service Departments.

Captain Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a decision, in view of the issue by the Ministry of Labour of a pamphlet, which is being sent to every Serviceman, and in which no reference is made to this matter?

Mr. Dalton: It would not necessarily benefit the Servicemen if we came to a premature decision. They will not be drawing these coupons until after demobilisation, and it is to their advantage that we should look into the thing carefully in the light of the available supplies. I am anxious to do the best I can for them.

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything is being done for the Women's Land Army in this connection?

Mr. Dalton: That is another question.

Regional Technical Directors

Mr. Nunn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the qualifications for a regional technical director; what is his salary; and whether he takes precedence of, or has authority over, other Board of Trade technical officers in his area.

Mr. Dalton: These officers deal only with engineering and must have a good general knowledge of the engineering industries. They are assisted, in each region, by a small staff, who have also been selected because of their experience of engineering. The salary range of the regional directors is £850 to £1,000 a year, plus Civil Service bonus of £60 a year.

Mr. Nunn: Can the right hon Gentleman say what constitutes reasonably experienced men? Do they have to take any special qualifications?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I do not think it is difficult to decide whether a particular man has a good knowledge of engineering. We do the best we can in the light of our information about the applicants and they are a good body of men.

Mr. Nunn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether one of these technical officers appointed with a good knowledge of engineering takes precedence, and has authority over a man who is, for instance, a chief engineer with a marine certificate?

Mr. Dalton: I have tried to explain the position. In each region we are particularly concerned with reconversion from war to peace of the engineering industry. For this purpose we have certain officers whom we have appointed specially for this purpose. The regional director is the head of these officers in each region. He is not over other members of the staff.

Combines and Restrictive Aģreements

Sir G. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action the Government propose to take to carry out Section 54 of the White Paper on Employment, involving obtaining power, to obtain information as to the extent and effect of restrictive agreements and of the activities of combines; and to take appropriate action to check practices which may bring advantages to sectional-producing interests but detrimental to the country as a whole.

Mr. Dalton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) on 27th March.

Sir G. Mander: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this is urgent; and will he undertake to introduce legislation at any rate some time before the end of this Session and the beginning of next?

Mr. Dalton: That is a matter on which anybody's guess is as good as any other.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Information on this?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly with the former.

Aluminium Hollow-ware

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to release for sale aluminium hollowware the production of which has been authorised by the Ministry of Aircraft Production.

Mr. Dalton: The production of aluminium hollow-ware is at present limited to the articles most needed—kettles, stew-pans and steamers. Eighty-two firms have now been licensed to make these goods, and they have been asked to produce as much as they can with the labour available. Prices are controlled, but there are no other restrictions on the sale of these goods.

Sir H. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the principal manufacturers states that he is not permitted to sell what he has made?

Mr. Dalton: In that case I think he had better get into touch with me, because he is misinformed.

Sir H. Williams: But as he sells his own products and my right hon. Friend does not, is it not likely that he knows more about it than my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Dalton: I think not.

British Industries (Exhibitions)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is intended to hold a British Industries Fair in 1946 and if consideration will be given to organising the pottery section exhibits at Trentham and cotton at Blackpool; and if he will make a full statement on the proposals for exhibiting British manufactured goods throughout the world after the war and on the organisation of suitable industry and trade films to be shown throughout the world.

Mr. Summers (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As my predecessor announced, advice is being sought from the British Industries Fair Exhibitors' Advisory Committee as to the earliest date


at which it will be practicable and desirable to hold the next fair. There are many difficult problems which must limit the effectiveness of any fair held at a short interval after the end of the European war. The importance of an early decision regarding a fair in 1946 is fully appreciated and I hope this may be forthcoming in the near future.
Distinction must be drawn between a National Fair on the lines of the British Industries Fair, which it is intended shall increasingly seek to attract overseas buyers, and a series of fairs representative of individual industries. There is a considerable volume of experienced opinion which holds the view that the use of a number of different centres reduces the appeal of a National Fair. It is my intention to discuss with individual industries their policy for exhibitions, both at home and abroad, or other methods to bring their goods to the attention of potential overseas buyers.
As regards the final part of the Question, my Department will use every opportunity to encourage industries and firms to arrange for the production of industrial films and to assist in securing their display abroad.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Leipzig, Paris and Lyons were centres of trade attraction before the war and is it the policy of the Overseas Trade Department to take the initiative in order to see that some place in this country is made the centre of a European trade exhibition?

Mr. Summers: The policy of the Department is to give full weight to those who have experience of exhibiting in the past and to any other considerations which will make for the success of the British Industries Fair.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Transfers to B.L.A. (Home Leave)

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that there is some dissatisfaction among men who, having served for more than four years in the Middle East and Central Mediterranean Forces, are eligible after transference to the B.L.A, for only seven days' home leave; and if, in any future modification of the B.L.A. leave scheme, con-

sideration can be given to length of service in more remote theatres of war.

Mr. T. J. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a division, of which he has been informed, after three years' service in the Middle East, have now been transferred to Belgium; that these men have only been allowed seven days' leave similar to the B.L.A.; and if he will consider granting these men at least 28 days' leave after three years abroad, as there is a strong feeling of resentment amongst the personnel concerned and relatives.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War why it is that men who have had several years' service abroad and have been transferred to the B.L.A. are only given nine days' leave.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Griģģ): These were operational moves between overseas commands. I have repeatedly made it clear that operational considerations over-ride all leave rules. Subject to this the general position is broadly speaking that transferees come under the rules applicable to the theatre to which they are transferred but count their service in the previous theatre for the purpose of any qualifying periods. If the men now in question had remained in their previous theatres they would have been eligible in due course for repatriation and they would have taken their chance in the allotment of vacancies for 28 days' leave. On transfer they aggregate their service for repatriation and acquire greatly increased chances of leave but for the smaller period of seven days. As a matter of fact, I arranged personally with Field Marshal Montgomery that they should have a special allotment over and above that to the rest of the B.L.A. and at approximately double the rate. In the result they should get leave much earlier than they otherwise would have done and their repatriation rights are not appreciably affected. On the whole I think they have been very fairly treated in somewhat difficult circumstances. Incidentally, Field Marshal Montgomery personally visited most of the men affected and explained the leave arrangements to them.

Mr. Shinwell: But in all the circumstances, would it not be desirable to grant these men, as a special arrangement, double the present arrangements regarding


the B.L.A. leave? In ordinary circumstances they would have been entitled to 28 days—

Sir J. Griģģ: No, there is no entitlement at all, they merely get—

Mr. Shinwell: I had not quite finished, if my right hon. Friend will allow me—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me. What I wanted to say was, apart from the question of entitlement, has it not been the custom in normal circumstances to grant these men 28 days' leave, and, in the special circumstances, would it not be desirable to double the leave and, instead of seven days, to give them at least 14?

Sir J. Griģģ: Not at all. They take their chance in a very limited allotment of places. I think I can broadly explain the matter, that whereas in their new home the whole lot of them are likely to get the shorter leave in a period of three months, it would have taken a very great deal longer than that for all of them to have qualified for and to have obtained the 28 days' leave. Each individual has a smaller allotment bat they all get it much earlier and with much more certainty.

Mr. Driberģ: While the right hon. Gentleman has, of course, given a reasonable and correct Departmental reply, would he bear in mind that when a man has been overseas for four years or more, it is very hard indeed only to get seven days' home leave—almost worse than not getting leave at all—and could he not look into the matter again?

Sir J. Griģģ: Certainly, Sir. I have looked into the matter with great care and I am willing to wager that the people concerned would very much rather that they all get seven days' leave than that a quarter or a fifth of them get 28 days' leave.

Mr. T. J. Brooks: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of feeling in the country amongst the relatives of these men and, seeing how widespread it is, surely he will agree that seven days' leave after three or four years abroad is not reasonable?

Sir J. Griģģ: I have received a certain number of complaints on behalf of relatives but the men themselves, to the best of my information, regard the arrangements made as quite reasonable.

Mr. Driberģ: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who have come home did not have the scheme explained to them by Field-Marshal Montgomery, as he has said?

Sir J. Griģģ: I said that most of the men affected had it explained to them. I am sorry that my information is rather different from that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it takes most of the men two or three days to travel to their homes after they arrive in this country?

Sir J. Griģģ: To the best of my knowledge the scheme allows a day or two extra—

Mr. McGovern: No.

Sir J. Griģģ: Excuse me, it does. I am sorry to contradict the hon. Member, but arrangements are made for people who live a long way off to be given extra travelling time.

Mr. McGovern: There are many cases where it takes 3½ days for the men to reach their homes.

Compassionate Leave

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will endeavour to arrange for compassionate leave for men in the Army who come from the Channel Islands as soon as the islands are liberated.

Sir J. Griģģ: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (General Sir G. Jeffreys) on 24th October.

Mr. Quintin Hoģģ: asked the Secretary of State for War whether consideration has now been given to the application made to his Department, on 19th December, for compassionate leave for Signalman F. E. May, whose mother is suffering from cancer and father from pulmonary tuberculosis.

Sir J. Griģģ: A letter about this case was sent to my hon. Friend on 20th March.

Mr. Hoģģ: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after three months' delay the only reason given for not repatriating this gentleman was that he had some brothers at home who might see their dying parents, and does he think that would be adequate consolation for them?

Sir J. Griģģ: I would be very grateful if the hon. Member would read the very full answer which I gave on 12th December to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) on this very subject.

Transfers to Indian Army

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken to ascertain the number of officers and other ranks who were compulsorily transferred from the British to the Indian Army; when and how these transfers occurred; and when an option to re-transfer will be granted.

Sir J. Griģģ: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the full statement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India on Thursday.

Sir J. Mellor: Does that mean that the Secretary of State for India will speak also on behalf of the War Office?

Sir J. Griģģ: It is a matter for mutual arrangement, and whatever the Secretary of State for India replies will certainly have my agreement.

Far East (Higher Age Groups)

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for War whether men of 40 years of age and over are subject to a special medical examination to ascertain their fitness for the conditions prevailing in the Far East before being drafted for service in that theatre of operations.

Sir J. Griģģ: No special medical examination is given to such men. The normal examination given to all men posted overseas, which naturally takes their age into account, is designed to ensure that no one is sent abroad who is not medically fit for the duties he will be called upon to perform.

Requisitioned Houses

Captain Bullock: asked the Secretary of State for War how many houses are still requisitioned by his Department; how many have been derequisitioned in the past six months; and how many of the requisitioned houses are empty at the present time.

Sir J. Griģģ: The number of houses under requisition by the War Office in England, Scotland and Wales was approximately 30,000 at the end of February. One thousand were derequisitioned during February, but I regret that the figures asked for in the second and third parts of the Question are not readily available.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the Minister see that houses which have been requisitioned for security reasons are returned to their owners when the need for security has passed, and that requisitioning is not continued for entirely different purposes?

Sir J. Griģģ: As regards small houses, I should hope that we shall derequisition them at the earliest opportunity.

War Decorations

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will introduce a rose Emblem as a clasp to the 1939–43 Star for personnel of the Army who are qualified for both the 1939–43 Star and the Africa Star, so that such personnel may enjoy the distinction enjoyed by personnel in the R.N., R.A.F. and Merchant Navy with similar qualifications.

Sir J. Griģģ: No, Sir. The silver "8" and "1" Emblems on the Africa Star ribbon in the Army signify specified service in the North African compaign after 23rd October, 1942, in the same way that the silver rose Emblem on the 1939–43 Star ribbon in the Navy and Merchant Navy distinguishes those who had service connected with that campaign during that period.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has any information as to the number of Service ribbons for service in this war so far issued for the U.S.A. Army and the Army of the U.S.S.R.

Sir J. Griģģ: My information is that in the first case the total is 4, and that in the second there have been no such issues.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that we have parity in these matters before the Armies meet in Berlin?

Sir J. Griģģ: I do not know whether my hon. Friend means parity with the United States or with the Soviet Armies.

Captain Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend include in his figures the medal awarded to those in the Army at the time of Pearl Harbour?

Sir J. Griģģ: The Question refers to ribbons for service in this war.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Secretary of State for War with reference to increase of the monetary award to go with the Victoria Cross and any other decoration, if he can state that such increases will also be paid to earlier holders of these decorations as from the same date as the increases become operative.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I have been, asked to reply. As stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his announcement on 27th February, the various changes apply to awards made for service since 3rd September, 1939. The recipients will, if living, be eligible retrospectively for the new gratuities, and will be eligible for the new pensions as from 1st October, 1944.

Officers (Civilian Outfit)

Mr. Bellenģer: asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers now being discharged from the Service are eligible for and able to obtain the civilian outfit announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being part of the war gratuity provisions.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the issue of civilian clothes and outfit applies to officers as well as other ranks.

Sir J. Griģģ: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 29th March.

Mr. Bellenģer: Did that reply indicate that officers are eligible for, and are getting, a civilian outfit on discharge now?

Sir J. Griģģ: My answer gave the information, and perhaps I might read it now. It stated:
… No officer is entitled to a clothing allowance on leaving the Service, but when the release period starts non-Regular officers leaving the Service will be entitled to the same civilian clothing as is given to other ranks." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1945; Vol. 57, C. 1551.]

Mr. Bellenģer: Is it not a fact that another rank leaving the Service now

does not get a cash allowance, but a civilian outfit? Why cannot officers be treated on the same level now as other ranks?

Sir J. Griģģ: Officers have always been treated separately from other ranks.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is not the Minister aware that when the original scheme was launched in October, 1944, a general statement was made which conveyed the idea to the public that officers would benefit as regards the provision of civilian clothing in precisely the same way as other ranks? Why have we gone back on such an undertaking?

Sir J. Griģģ: The undertaking referred to the release period, and that undertaking still applies.

Members of Parliament (Addresses to Troops)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any further statement to make regarding instructions issued by the General Officer Commanding in the Middle East banning speeches by Members of Parliament to the troops under his command except by his express permission, and then only after submitting the script of the proposed speech.

Sir J. Griģģ: I have been unable t6 find any substance whatever in the hon. Member's allegation. Perhaps he will let me have authentic copies of the evidence on which he based his Question.

Mr. Stokes: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries in Cairo?

Sir J. Griģģ: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR

Released Men, Germany (Return)

Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will assure the House that adequate plans have been made for the return to the United Kingdom, at the earliest possible moment, of British prisoners of war held in Germany and Italy, including those released during the Allied advance on all fronts.

Sir Thomas Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give the names or numbers of Oflag and Stalag prisoners-of-war camps which have been


overrun by Allied Armies in their advance from the Rhine eastwards; if prisoners in these camps have been liberated; if they are well; what arrangements are being made for their transport to this country, especially long-term prisoners; and when their relatives and friends may expect them to arrive.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement about -the position generally of British prisoners of war in Germany at present; how many have been released by British and Allied efforts; what action His Majesty's Government intend to take to free prisoners of war in the event of there being no Government in Germany capable or willing to negotiate their release or exchange at an early date; and what arrangements are being made after their return and what Department is now responsible for this work.

Sir J. Griģģ: The Soviet authorities have notified us that they have recovered 3,312 prisoners from the British Commonwealth, and 2,679 of these have been evacuated from Odessa. It is clear that most of our prisoners who were in Eastern Germany were evacuated by the Germans.before the camps were reached by the Red Army. This is confirmed by information sent to us by the Protecting Power.
The Germans have recently attempted to withdraw our prisoners of war from Western Germany but owing to the speed of our advance 7,000 have so far been recovered, and 2,600 of these have arrived in this country. I am circulating the numbers of the camps affected in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Most of Our prisoners are now concentrated in camps in the centre of Germany. As soon as we receive the names of individuals released their next-of-kin are informed and I can assure the House that every available means will be used to ensure the quick return to this country of our prisoners. Detailed plans for reception in this country are complete, the necessary instructions have been issued and reception camps established. The general responsibility for the co-ordination of these arrangements rests with the War Department but on arrival in this country, recovered prisoners are taken over by their respective authorities, who are of

course responsible for their future handling. Arrangements have been made to inform all recovered prisoners at the earliest time after their release of the details of their reception in this country including their leave and future prospects.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Can the Minister say whether Transport Command of the R.A.F. are co-operating in order to fly back as many of these men as possible?

Sir J. Griģģ: I think the hon. Member had better address that question to the Secretary of State for Air.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Could my right hon. Friend say whether there is any organisation in Western Germany, either military or civilian, which has been specifically told off to deal with our escaped prisoners of war?

Sir J. Griģģ: I cannot say whether any organisation has been specifically told off to do this, but there are military organisations at S.H.A.E.F. and in our Armies in Western Germany which are equipped to cope with this matter.

Sir A. Knox: Would it not be better to have such an organisation?

Sir Thomas Hunter: Has the Minister any information about Oflag 9A, from which British prisoners of war have been marched with nothing but a coat, blanket and some food? Has he any information as to their being followed up by the Americans?

Sir J. Griģģ: The only information I have is that some prisoners of war from Oflag IX AH and Oflag IX AZ have succeeded in reaching our lines, but if my hon. Friend wants any more information perhaps he will put the question down.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Has my right hon. Friend any information with regard to the statement that the Germans are shepherding our prisoners of war to their last bastion of defence, in Bavaria?

Sir J. Griģģ: I have no specific information, and could not say without notice; if my hon. Friend cares to put down a Question I will give him all the information I have.

Following are the numbers of the camps affected:

Most of the prisoners released by the British and American Armies are from


Oflag XII B, Stalags IX C, XII A and Dulag Wetzler but some prisoners from Oflags IX A/H, IX A/Z, Stalags IX A, IX B, XII D, XII F, XIII C and Dulag Hadamer have also succeeded in reaching our lines

German Reprisals

Mr. Driberģ: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that British prisoners of war in a German camp, of whose identity he has been informed, have been deprived of their palliasses, allegedly in reprisal for similar action against German prisoners in Egypt; and if he can make any statement on this matter.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement about reprisals against British prisoners of war in Germany for the alleged conditions in Prisoner of War Camp 306 in Egypt.

Sir J. Griģģ: Information was received at the end of January, 1945, that the Germans in violation of their obligations under the Prisoners of War Convention had removed mattresses, palliasses and most of the furniture from British prisoners of war in Oflag VII B and Stalag 357 as a reprisal for alleged conditions at two camps in Egypt holding German prisoners of war. The German allegations concerning conditions in these camps are entirely without foundation and no complaint on this matter had been received from the German Government. The strongest possible protest was at once sent through the Protecting Power to the German Government. As no reply was received a reminder was sent and the Protecting Power has been asked to report on the present position at Oflag VII B and Stalag 357.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Will the Minister himself make representations to the Secretary of State for Air in order that machines from Transport Command will be made available to bring the majority of these men back home at the earliest possible moment?

Sir J. Griģģ: Unfortunately, these are people who are still "in durance vile."

ARMY OF OCCUPATION (WOMEN'S AUXILIARY SERVICES)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can say

if it has now been decided to use the members of the Women's Auxiliary Services as part of the Army of Occupation in Europe.

Sir J. Griģģ: I regret I have nothing at present to add to the reply I gave the hon. Lady on 6th February.

Mrs. Keir: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be in a position to answer this Question?

Sir J. Griģģ: Not offhand.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (LONDON AREA)

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Production to what extent an embargo has been laid upon the placing of certain Government contracts in the Metropolitan aea; whether it applies to the provision of parts of houses, temporary or permanent; and will he give particulars.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): There is no embargo upon the placing of contracts in the London area, either for the production of munitions or to meet essential civil requirements, including the provision of parts of houses. In view, however, of the continued existence of an. exceptionally large number of unfilled vacancies for essential work of high priority in London, it has been arranged that, for the time being, Departments will avoid placing contracts there when the work can be done equally well in other places where the shortage of labour is less acute.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the method by which this embargo, for it is an embargo, is being carried out means that no contract will be placed in the London area unless it cannot be placed in the provinces and that this will mean that a number of businesses which have been established in London for many generations will be put out of business altogether because they are unable to obtain any material with which to continue their pre-war work?

Mr. Garro Jones: There is in fact no embargo. Much new work is being placed in London and there is a direction of work to the provinces where it can be done there equally well as in London, where there is an acute stringency of labour.

Sir H. Williams: Is the Minister aware that there has been a very substantial reduction in production in certain parts of London because no contracts have been placed, and that there is a great deal of unemployment arising out of this? Is he aware that many people are rather worried about it?

Mr. Garro Jones: That is a very partial picture. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is very misleading.

Sir Georģe Jones: Is it a fact that the Ministry of Production, the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Ministry of Supply have received instructions not to place any orders for woodwork or for engineering work in London?

Mr. Garro Jones: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that Question on the Order Paper.

Captain Pluģģe: Will the Minister look into any particular case of hardship where the factory is eminently suited to the work that is brought to his notice?

Mr. Garro Jones: Yes, Sir, we are constantly looking into cases of hardship, and see that no excessive hardship is caused.

WOMEN'S LAND ARMY

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the further representations made to him about the W.L.A.; and with what result.

Sir Adam Maitland: asked the Prime Minister whether representations made on behalf of the W.L.A. for recognition on demobilisation have been considered; and if he can make a statement on the matter.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I regret that I cannot add to the statement which I made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 8th March.

Sir P. Hurd: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Minister of Agriculture has been putting out urgent appeals for more workers on the land, and has he further noticed that 135 Members of the House, including Members of nearly all parties, have put down their names to Notices of Motion asking that there should be better treatment of these women?

The Prime Minister: The request for more woman labour, which is very necessary on the land, should be accompanied by conditions governing the future and not necessarily by gratuities or rewards which have relation to the past. With regard to the 135 Members who have put down their names on this question, nothing would be easier and, if I were so base, nothing more tempting, than to offer large and unconsidered concessions at the public expense.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Are we to take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that further representations on behalf of the Women's Land Army will be useless?

The Prime Minister: Further representations in respect of the special war-time gratuity must be considered to have fallen into that sphere of decisions which have already been taken.

Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the disappointment which will be felt at the right hon. Gentleman's answer and in view of the fact that over 100 Members have put their names to Motions on the Order.Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider giving us an opportunity to debate the question in the near future?

The Prime Minister: Questions about the Business of the House must be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Prime Minister consider, if he cannot give a gratuity, some other form of recognition of the magnificent work of these women?

The Prime Minister: I have looked around very carefully for something that would be suitable and would not open too wide a door, but one must be very careful, in a Parliament which is in its closing phase, not to embark on a competition for winning popularity, for any party, without due regard to the public and financial consequences.

Mr. Shinwell: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of guarantees for these women who have been working on the land as a reason why he cannot meet their other claims for gratuities and the like, what guarantees does he refer to?

The Prime Minister: I do not remember using the word "guarantees."

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the right hon. Gentleman did indicate that in the absence of gratuities there were certain other favourable conditions open to these women. Can he say what they are?

The Prime Minister: Certainly I cannot at the moment, but the principle of division is that the Women's Land Army fall into the general industrial sphere. That is the position we have taken up. We may be wrong, but we have taken it up. One hundred Members have put down their names to a statement that we are wrong, but probably we have a majority which thinks we are right. I do not know. But naturally the future is a separate topic from the past. In the future, if women are needed on the land the necessary attraction must be offered to secure their supply.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel deeply and sincerely that the decision has been taken on a false basis and that the parallel between women in industry in general and the Women's Land Army is not a true parallel? Will my right hon. Friend consent to receive a deputation or at any rate to allow some discussion on tile matter?

The Prime Minister: I am sure people do feel deeply and sincerely about it, but also there are those who have laid on them the heavy duty of endeavouring to keep the public finances in a certain state.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a wrong perspective altogether?

WAR DESPATCHES (PUBLICATION)

Mr. Bellenģer: asked the Prime Minister what were the considerations which led to the decision to publish Lord Gort's despatch on the Battle of France and to withhold publication of the despatches relating to other campaigns in this war.

The Prime Minister: Lord Gort's despatches were withheld from publication for over a year, until such time as they could be published without detriment to the public interest. I hope that the other numerous despatches will be published in the near future.

Mr. Bellenģer: Although I welcome that advance on previous indications which the

right hon. Gentleman has given, may I ask whether "the near future" means before the end of the war with Germany, or before the end of the war with Japan?

The Prime Minister: In regard to those that concern the war with Germany, it means the end of the war with Germany. As to those that concern the war with Japan, they obviously have to be looked upon with much more strict supervision.

Mr. Bellenģer: Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider publishing despatches concerning the Italian campaign as the war with Italy, I take it, is now over?

The Prime Minister: The war with Italy began with Italy but it finished up with Germany, and for more than a year past we have been fighting Germany in Italy, and many Italian troops have been fighting on our side. Operations there are so intermingled that we had better restrain our impatience till the momentary lull which is supposed to follow the defeat of Germany. In that time there may be good opportunity to publish despatches, but it would be very foolish to pour them out on the newspapers at this time—apart from security—when our Forces are advancing with such great rapidity and when the newspapers are so small, and very likely the despatches of these distinguished officers would not receive the attention that they deserve.

WAR GRAVES (RELATIVES' VISITS)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance to the relatives of those who have been killed on active service overseas that arrangements will be made for them to visit the burial ground as soon as it is reasonably practicable after hostilities cease.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to Questions put to me on this subject on 4th October last which was:
This proposal will be very carefully considered. But not now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th October, 1944, Vol. 403, c. 931.]

Mr. Tinker: Will consideration be given to the financial side?

The Prime Minister: The matter will be treated in a most considerate and reverential mood, but it may be quite a long time before it is possible.

FAR EAST OPERATIONS (HIGHER AGE GROUPS)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that, except in special circumstances, men over 35 years of age are not to be called up, it is proposed, when the war in Europe is over, to send men over that age now serving with the Forces on the Continent to the Far Eastern theatre of war.

The Prime Minister: The policy we are pursuing is, naturally, to restrict overseas posting to the Far Eastern theatres as far as possible, to those members of the Forces who are not due for early release. This policy will automatically result in limiting the numbers of older men so posted but there is and can be no rigid upper age limit.

REQUISITIONED HOTELS, LONDON (RELEASE)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great shortage of hotel accommodation in London and the inconvenience to business and other visitors caused therefrom, he will ensure that all Departments concerned take immediate steps to examine their present requisitionings in order progressively to release all possible accommodation.

The Prime Minister: Departments are already aware of the urgent need for surrendering hotel accommodation in London. Arrangements for releasing requisitioned accommodation are under constant review and hotels rank high in priority. This matter will be thrust forward with all possible despatch.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION (CONTINUANCE)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet reached any decision as to the date beyond which the existence of the Ministry of Information will not be deemed necessary; and whether it is still the intention of the Government, as stated by the present Minister of Information, to abolish it completely.

The Prime Minister: I have no statement to make on this subject at the present time.

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend disagree in any way with the very

clear-cut statement of the Minister of Information.

The Prime Minister: Considering the Parliamentary aptitude and knowledge of my hon. Friend, I am surprised that he should stray into such a wide degree of irrelevance.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the new activities of the Minister of Information, would it not be desirable that his salary should be borne, instead of upon the Treasury, upon the central office of the Conservative Party?

The Prime Minister: The Minister of Information was speaking in his capacity as a Member of His Majesty's Government, in which, at present, great freedom appears to be allowed, and not as the admittedly impartial functionary who has for so long discharged the control of the Ministry of Information with considerable acceptance.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, on the constitutional issue involved, that if an hon. Member sought to put a Question at the Table bearing on speeches delivered by Members of the War Cabinet relating to party matters such Questions would not be permissible? How can these gentlemen be speaking as Members of the Government?

The Prime Minister: I do not understand. I imagine that speeches of Ministers can be raised in the House although delivered out of doors, but perhaps not by the procedure of Questions. That is subject to special regulations found convenient by all sides. But if people have reason to think that the Minister of Labour, for instance, has been speaking for the Labour Party rather than for the office that he holds, there are always opportunities in Parliamentary Debate at least of making some reference to the subject.

Mr. J. J. Lawson: May we take it that it is accepted that peace has broken out on the political front?

The Prime Minister: There always has been peace and loyalty within. As we are by general consent moving into a dispute between parties, it is obvious that divergencies of outward expression will occur, but no statement has been made, or could be tolerated in the interest of representative Government and Ministerial


association, which reflects upon the actual policy pursued by the Government. It has never been asked that Socialists should riot talk Socialism or Conservatives Conservatism, or even Liberals Liberalism.

Captain Pluģģe: Will my right hon. Friend consider substituting for the Ministry of Information a Ministry of Broadcastng after the war?

The Prime Minister: That is far too wide an issue for me to answer.

Sir H. Williams: Can Radio Luxemburg again be placed at the disposal of the Government?

TRANSPORT COMMAND (SAFETY OF PASSENGERS)

At end of Questions—

Mr. Bowles: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Government to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of passengers carried by Transport Command."

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than Forty Members having accordingly risen the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 8, until a quarter past Six o'clock this evening.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)

Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Distribution of Industry Bill): Mr. Clement Davies; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Wilfrid Roberts.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1945

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

REPAIR OF BOMB-DAMAGED HOUSES

3.22 p.m.

Mr. Key: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in the opinion of this House, immediate steps should be taken to complete all stages of repair to war-damaged dwellings at the earliest possible date, and that to assist in this early arrangements should be made to provide local authorities with the necessary supervisory and technical staffs.
In Government statements which have been made during the last few weeks there appears to be a considerable amount of satisfaction at the attainment of the much-advertised winter target of 719,000 houses repaired in the six months ended on 31st March. There may be some grounds for that satisfaction, but I cannot help feeling that the publicity in connection with it is to be regretted. I am convinced that a wholly wrong impression has been given to the people of this country of what the situation in this matter really is. While the people in the South-East of England may have a clear appreciation of the situation in their own localities, not even they know the condition of affairs in the South-Eastern area as a whole. The people in the rest of the country are not only ignorant of what has actually happened in South-Eastern England, but a very gay and rosy picture has been created for them of the house-repair work that has been done. Ignorance is always dangerous; in this case it is likely to be very dangerous indeed. It may lead to a diminution in the supply of labour and materials in the London area because of the impression that may get abroad that the reasons for directing more labour into the London area have gone. There may also be interference with the steady flow to London of the materials which are essential.
The greatest evil that may be done in this connection, will be among the many thousands of evacuees who are waiting, eager to return to London. This trumpeting of a false accomplishment may lead them to form the impression that plentiful accommodation exists in the areas which they left, and they may return in their tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, only to find that the stern reality is very different indeed from the wishful picture that they have been persuaded to paint, as a result of mistaken publicity. The conditions which those who live in the devastated areas know would result from that return fill us with dread and dismay. We dare not allow ignorance of the facts to lead people to return to the unnecessary misery and squalor which would result if that return took place. Therefore, we think that every effort should be officially made to give the country a clear and plain understanding of the truth in this matter, to tell people plainly what has been done to those 700,000 houses that are supposed to have been repaired, what state those houses are now in, whether the houses are really habitable and whether the repairs have really been carried out.
The first fact which, I claim, should be told to the people of the country in this connection is that the announcement of the target, made at that Box on 7th December, coincided almost exactly with an instruction issued to local authorities on nth December lowering the standard of repairs that was to be allowed. However one might like to think there was no deliberate dependence of the one fact upon the other, it will be very difficult for one so to do. Between July and December there had been a slow but steady improvement in the standard of repairs allowed. On 4th July, the Government had started the practice of issuing to local authorities notes upon war damage repairs. Serial Note No. 1, issued on 4th July, laid down certain standards at which the local authorities had to aim. The local authorities were told that immediate repairs should not go beyond the standard set. Where extensive war damage had been done to roofs, these were to be covered with tarpaulins, or roofing felt well battened down. Tiles or slates might be replaced to small patches, and displaced window frames could be replaced and sashes and casements made secure. Broken panes were to be hacked out, and

the empty spaces filled with translucent material to the extent of half the window area, in order that what was called "a reasonable amount of daylight" might be ensured. External but not internal doors were to be temporarily repaired and rehung and loose plaster on walls and ceilings was to be taken down but only those ceilings open to roof space were to be covered with suitable material. Essential fittings were to be refixed and a minimum of essential services was to be restored.
That basic standard was very poor and very inadequate, even at that time. Some slight amendment was made in Serial Note 21, issued on 14th August. It said:
The present standard is so low, it must be improved at the first opportunity. Where circumstances permit, therefore, local authorities should proceed with a further stage of first-aid repair.
The improvements that were allowed were to be: more roof covering; small patches in ceilings could be plastered; other parts of the ceiling could be covered with board, and rather more translucent material than half the window space was allowed for windows. On 6th September, by Serial Note 25—I am going into these details because I want to be most fair to the Department, if I can—reglazing was permitted, particularly in living rooms and kitchens, internal doors, it was hoped but only hoped, would become available, and authorities were warned that where plaster board was used on ceilings, the surface of the board was to serve as a proper finish, because the board was not to be distempered. Hon. Members may or may not be able to form a picture of what an ordinary working class home damaged in the blitz would look like if repaired to those standards, but after visiting very large numbers of those homes I can say that they are very dull and dismal, very uncomfortable, very uninviting. Wind and weatherproof they may be, but they are far below the standard of houses which I, as a member of a local authority, was party to condemning before the war as not fit for human habitation.
When we come to 11th December, when the target for the winter programme was laid down, we find that even the miserable standard which I have described was too high for the work that was to be done. It was lowered in order that the target might be achieved. It. would


have been much better, much fairer, and much wiser if the House and the country had been told that plainly when the target was announced. Some local authorities, in order to spread relief among a greater number of their people, had done repairs at a lower standard than the July-September Serial Notes allowed. They hoped, indeed longed, to be able to go back to complete the repairs up to the standard of the Circular, but now they found that their lower standard was to hit back at them, and that what they had put forward as a regrettable minimum was to be thrust upon them as a maximum. Serial Note 56, issued on 11th December, says:
A recent review has shown that many authorities are working to standards which, compared with those adopted by others, have resulted in a great saving of effort and a speedier rate of progress.
That is a very euphemistic description of a degradation of the standard of repair,
All local authorities are now requested to adopt this practice, Such action is imperative if the maximum number of families are to be made tolerably comfortable before Christmas; if the London winter programme is to be completed by, or before, the end of March next; and if the materials and labour are to be used to the best advantage.
Among specific lowerings of standards that were to be enforced upon local authorities were these: Rooms not essential for the use of the family or families inhabiting a house were not to be repaired, that is, extra living and spare bedrooms, which, in effect, meant that the ordinary working class family was confined to its kitchen and not allowed to use what was called its parlour. No decoration or painting was to be carried out unless essential for the protection of the work done; for example, the painting of putty or new woodwork, or where one coat of distemper was essential to ensure a minimum of comfort. So essential was it that the target should be attained, no matter how degraded the standard of repair, that even that lowered standard was not sufficient as the job went on. On 8th February Serial Note 95 stated:
The standard prescribed in Serial 56 is a maximum, not a minimum. Any house which has been so repaired as to reach the standard prescribed by the Council where that is more limited than Serial No. 56 or where the householder prefers a more limited standard in present circumstances should be counted as completed so far as the winter target is concerned.

Let the House note that. That is what is meant by 100 per cent. attainment of the winter programme. The right hon. Gentleman may be very proud of it, but it is a very sorry show indeed. No hon. Member would like to live under the conditions which hundreds of thousands are forced to endure in the more severely damaged parts of this area. Of comfort in those places there is none; drabness and gloom abound; draughts and cold, dampness and stuffiness, serious overcrowding and gross inconvenience are not uncommon amongst them. It has to be seen to be understood, and it has to be experienced before it can be appreciated.
The first point I want to make with regard to the programme is that an enormous amount of work still remains to be done to the 700,000 houses which are supposed to make up that winter programme, and there are two further outstanding factors to be remembered. The 719,000 houses in the winter target were houses that had been damaged before 22nd September and did not include a very large number of other houses that were damaged. The target was confined to those houses which, in the words of the Minister of Works on 7th December, though damaged were for the most part habitable and in fact inhabited. There existed another category described in the same speech as the more seriously damaged which, though now unfit to live in, were still worth mending. This second category has still to be tackled. How many houses that comprises it is difficult to say, because I cannot remember having seen any numbers stated, but from investigations which I have made I am convinced that in the London area they total more than 100,000, and that the average cost of reinstatement will be much nearer £400 than £100.
The second factor to be taken into account is that the 700,000 houses were those which had been damaged before 22nd September. The winter target did not include any of the houses damaged subsequent to that date. There, again, we do not know the number, for upon that problem the security black-out has been complete. I hope the time has now come when we can be told the truth about the extent of that addition to this damage programme. There are many areas in South-East England where, the winter target having been attained to 100 per


cent., the local authorities are to-day faced with a far greater summer programme than the winter programme. Taking these two factors together it has to be realised that the task with which we are faced is a colossal one, and the House and the country must recognise that. The House must recognise it because is must be relentless in its insistence that far more labour and materials are devoted to this job than in the past. The country must recognise it in order that it may see the justice of the compulsory postponement of building and decorative work which, however desirable, will be seen to be trivial when compared with this more urgent task. For that reason I was glad to hear the Minister of Health say in the last housing Debate that the £10 licence limit was to be extended to the country as a whole. Experience has shown, first in London and later in the South-East of England, that it led to the freeing of labour and the turning of the attention of building contractors to this repair work. I think that will also be the experience when the limitation is extended to the country on 1st May, and I hope that strict standards of essentiality of work will be laid down before the licences are issued. I say that in view of the leaflet issued by the Ministry concerning the houses undergoing repair during the carrying out of the winter programme. This leaflet said:
Essential repairs will be done to as many of your rooms as are absolutely necessary for the use of you and your family. The aim is to make these rooms tolerably comfortable as quickly as possible. All the repairs to your home cannot be completed now. Some of that work will have to wait until such time as more labour and materials are available.
Then the leaflet went on:
Why can't it all be done now? Some 700,000 houses in London have to be dealt with this winter, so there are 699,999 besides yours. If your home was completely repaired now other people would have to wait longer. The first thing is to bring everybody's house up to a modest but tolerable standard as quickly as possible.
I agree; but I say, Let that first be done to every damaged house in the land. Decorations, additions or improvements to undamaged houses must be made to wait until that modest but tolerable standard has been realised in the home of everybody.
I have spent thus much time in stating the task because I believe it is essential

that the public should understand what the problem is, as only then can we give proper consideration to how it is to be tackled. I submit that there are two main problems. The first is the problem of repair of all damaged houses to a standard at least as high as that which was reached last September, arid in tackling that there should be no halt at the stage when we come to deal with those that have got priority. In those houses that have been damaged since September there should be no halt at the stage of having reached the winter target. The job should go straight on in these houses to bring them up to the full standard, not only because that would mean greater economy of labour, but because we must minimise the number of visits which parties of workmen have to make to the homes of our people in the damaged areas. One of the most trying experiences of our sorely tried people is to have a party of workmen come and do a bit of repair to the house this week, another party next week and then another next month. Whilst bombing was on, it was necessary to move men for "field dressings" to newly damaged houses, but now we should go on and complete the job with the workmen who go to the house in the first instance.
The second problem with which we are faced is the final reinstatement of all war damaged houses that are classified as "not total loss," and these include not only the houses which have so far been repaired, but also those more heavily damaged that are generally classified as C (a) and C (b) houses. Where inferior and substitute materials have been used in repairs this will involve their replacement. Whilst substitutes are inevitable, efforts should be made to see that, as far as possible, they are permanently suitable for the work that is done, and very careful watch should be kept on the use of inferior materials. I wish to give, as an instance, a case which I was asked to investigate recently, with regard to the use of poor quality timber. I am assured on very reliable evidence that timber is being used in war damage repairs which, in some cases, has a life of less than six years. I claim that care should be taken in the use of such materials on jobs which will involve considerable future work, for example, if it is used as roof timbers, where future replacement will be as costly as it will be essential.
I also urge that attention be given in this business of reinstatement, to what are called the C (b) houses, the badly damaged houses. The longer they stand untouched, the worse they will become, and as a result we shall be losing essential accommodation, at least of a temporary character, which we can very ill afford. The first of these two major tasks can and should be carried out by local authorities. But I want to urge that for efficiency's sake certain modifications should be made in the plan under which the work is being done. There is at present divided responsibility in supervision and organisation. In a given local authority area, some contractors are employed by the local authority, whilst others, often the larger firms, are employed by the Ministry of Works. The local authority have no direct control in those cases, and with shortage of staff they find it impossible to give the detailed written instructions to the Ministry of Works supervisor. Thus, whilst the local authority is responsible for the work, the staff supervising it is not controlled by them. That is bad organisation. Mobility of labour is sacrificed as a result of it, for whilst the local authority contractors and workmen can be moved about from one district to another within the local authority area, the Ministry of Works' contractors are confined in most cases to a given area. I am certain that greater efficiency in repair would result, as well as greater economy in supervisory staff, if all labour were controlled by the local authority and the clerks of works who now supervise Ministry of Works' contractors could be taken and utilised by the local authorities in the general job.
In this connection I want consideration to be given to an alteration in the system of allocation of labour, because this has often been quite uneconomical, particularly from the point of view of supervision of the work. The large firms employed by the Ministry of Works very often have gangs of 100 to 300 men, whilst the local builders employed by the local authority have, in most cases, gangs of less than 30. If these smaller groups were brought up to 50 each by the allocation of imported labour to local firms instead of to the Ministry of Works' large contractors, more useful units would be formed capable of being moved easily and able to operate—and this is important—from a

damaged house in the district where they were working, instead of requiring the huts, tents, store sheds and other paraphernalia necessary for large gangs in existing circumstances. That alteration would also simplify considerably the problem of canteens, mess rooms and lavatory accommodation which has caused considerable trouble in some areas.
In any case, if the work is to be done expeditiously and efficiently, the local authorities must be given more assistance in the future than they have had in the past. Month after month, first to this Ministry and then to that, I have led deputations of local authorities, pleading for more technical and supervisory staff to enable them to cope with the growing tasks that confront them. We have met with little, if any, success as a result of those deputations. But the need grows ever greater, and will continue to increase as the normal activities of local authorities have to be restarted. We all know there is difficulty in getting men released for this job, but housing is the most vital problem that faces this community at the present moment. I am convinced that more could have been done in the way of repairs during last winter, with the labour force that was available, if more supervisory and technical grades had been made available to the local authorities. Real economy in the use of man-power makes the tackling of that problem essential.
Lastly, there is the work of final reinstatement. This will be a difficult matter, for it will involve the closing of the claims which owners have upon the War Damage Commission, and a final agreement as to the extent of war damage for each property concerned. I submit that that is an impossible task for local authorities to carry out. The differences and delays in the negotiations would interrupt very much the organisation and flow of the work that the local authority would be called upon to do. Moreover, the work will have to be carried out to the satisfaction of both owner and the War Damage Commission—a very different organisational set-up in regard to repairs, where the local authority has merely to satisfy the Ministry as to its standard of repairs. The local authorities should not be involved in that at all. As this extended first-aid repair work nears completion the services of


builders and the materials necessary should be made progressively available to owners to carry out the final reinstatement on terms agreed between them and the Commission. But whatever is done in that respect I submit that first things must come first, and the first things in this case are the necessary repairs at the present moment. Therefore, every effort should be made in the months ahead of us, by the supply of more labour and materials, by the improvement in organisation and the supply of increased technical and supervisory staff to the local authorities to make certain, before the bad weather of next winter comes, that we have done everything we can to assure reasonable ease and comfort in the fullest measure of accommodation which our greatest efforts will make possible for the people of this country.

3.57 P.m.

Mr. Bellenģer: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of war damage in his own constituency, has, I think, convinced the House that the methods of tackling war damage at the present moment are by no means adequate. I hope to show ways in which the present organisation can be considerably improved. I said on a previous occasion that although I do not represent a heavily war damaged constituency, I have experience of doing repair work. I am not engaged, at the moment, in war damage repair work. I hold a builder's licence, but I have no men, and I cannot operate, though I would be very willing to do so, as I have stated in the House previously.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about target figures. I have looked upon those figures with a great deal of scepticism for some time past. The Minister, or his predecessor, has gone for figures rather than facts. The facts do not justify the figures of adequate repairs, not even of second stage repairs, that have been issued to the public. When we are told that 719,000 houses have been repaired up to a certain standard, the people who live in those badly damaged houses know what that standard is. My hon. Friend has said it is a very poor standard, judged by any test. The people who do not live in those houses, who are living in comparatively well-found houses, especially people in parts of the country other than London,

imagine the Ministry of Works are doing an enormous job. They are doing nothing of the kind. What they have done, and I admit they have done fairly well during the period of the flying bomb menace, has been to be quick on the spot during the period of incidents, with a large number of workmen—that may have been justified at the time—to tack up something to the windows, and give the people some sort of assurance that they were being looked after. No doubt it has had a very good psychological effect when the men have come down the street and put in an appearance. But time has gone on, and the people are waiting for the next appearance of the Ministry of Works or the local authority; and too often they have had to wait too long.
I do not know whether the Minister noticed a very interesting article in a newspaper last Sunday. It was written by a colleague of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friend knows the writer quite well—Mr. Cop-pock, a man who, I believe, belongs to my hon. Friend's own organisation: a practical man. What Mr. Coppock wrote in "Reynolds" last Sunday ought to convince anybody who is willing to be convinced that the practical men are not being consulted. Who are what one would call the "big shots" in the right hon. Gentleman's Department, in the main? Not men who are used to dealing with patching jobs—as much of this work is—or repairing old and dilapidated houses, such as are found especially in the East End. I doubt very much whether these houses are going to be adequately repaired, even when the owners have settled what is to be done with the War Damage Commission. Mr. Coppock said something which I know to be a fact: that there are too many civil engineers at the top in the Ministry of Works. They may be suitable for building Royal Ordnance factories and aerodromes, but not for tackling war damage repairs. It cannot be done as a military evolution. Therefore, I do not look with much favour upon the appointment of a general, who may know something about anti-aircraft gunnery, but who, I suggest, knows very little about housing. However, the Government have appointed him, and they have to stand or fall by the results which he achieves. I should have welcomed some more men of the calibre of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary,


whose voice, I notice, is absent from most of our Debates on this subject. He is a practical man, and he could tell us, if he would, some of the difficulties of repairing war-damaged houses. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has a lot to learn before he is able to tackle this problem adequately; and time is passing, and we cannot afford to teach Ministers to do their jobs; the people want their houses repaired.
Let me give an example of the way these matters are tackled. My hon. Friend has referred to the Ministry of Works pools of labour doing some jobs, and the local authority pools of labour doing other jobs—both run from separate Government Departments, with separate organisations, and sometimes separate rates of wages for the workmen. We have also the local builders mobilised to do work concurrently with the two pools. Most of these little builders, of the type my hon. Friend referred to, know their job of repairing houses and keeping houses going which are 70, 80 and as much as 90 years old. Many of these builders are short not only of technical and supervisory assistance, but of the building labour itself. They are constantly being milked for the local authority pools and the Ministry of Works pools. Sometimes these little building firms are taken en bloc, or with their repair gangs. They like to hold on to their gangs, because that ensures that they retain their labour, and they try to contribute to the local authorities' pool of workmen. They often put in charge of these gangs so-called foremen, who have never done that sort of work in their lives, to keep the gangs together, so that they can get their workmen back at some time. These little builders are sent from North to East and from South to West, all over London, with the result that the amount of time lost in travelling is, in the aggregate, simply enormous. It might be better if the Ministry made a survey—perhaps they have made it—of the number of jobbing builders' firms in each locality, and tried to get those firms going in the localities, supplementing those firms in the badly-damaged localities with extra labour, because, obviously, more labour is wanted in those areas than in areas like Hampstead, which are not so badly damaged. A large number of

the employees of these small building firms are oldish men, who are not really mobile; they suffer from all the complaints under the sun. You cannot get the same amount of work from them if you take them away from their homes, and send them to parts where they do not understand the different types of houses which have to be tackled—for it is quite a different thing to repair a large house from repairing a small house, although that may not be generally realised. A lot of labour, at present, is being badly utilised by being sent from one part of London to another.
I always believe in giving solid cases. The other day a builder in London came to my office, and said, "What are we going to do now? We have a contract with the Kensington Council to repair war-damaged houses in Kensington. It runs on to the end of April. The council have told us that that contract is at an end, because our men are wanted in Barking, for entirely different types of property. There was a lot of grumbling among some of the builders, but I went over to survey the job. I said to the official who was dealing with this matter—perhaps the borough surveyor: I do not know—that some of my men were getting a penny an hour more than the trade union rate." That is often done among builders—and in other industries too—because builders want to retain their men. I do not know whether Kensington is going to get into trouble over this, but that builder has been getting the rate that he has been paying his men. He told me that the official in Barking said, "That is nothing to do with us; we pay the rate, and nothing more." That may be according to the book, and one cannot argue about that; but what has been the effect on the men? I ought to say that if a man travels over a certain distance he gets extra payment. I am not sure of the figure, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that if they go over 15 miles they get an extra 4s.; at any rate, they get extra.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I cannot give the exact details, but the extra payment is for travelling time; and those that we send from the country get a subsistence allowance equal to 4s. a day.

Mr. Bellenģer: That is going to make my case a little better. As my hon. Friend admits, the men get extra for travelling time. But how is that calculated? The distance from their homes to their jobs is measured on a map, as the crow flies. You cannot get from Kensington to Barking as the crow flies, except by aeroplane.

Mr. Hicks: I do not think the crow flies straight.

Mr. Bellenģer: That is a typical official explanation. If you are going to treat your workmen that way, you will not get the best out of them. It is bad enough to use some of these flat-footed, flat-chested, and comparatively disabled men—because that is the material the builders have to work with—without treating them in that fashion, by simply measuring on a map the distances that the men have to travel. Everybody knows that the underground railway and the buses do not go like that.
I should have thought that, with the number of workmen we have working on war damage in London, we should have got better results. I do not want to say anything against the workmen. I hope that I have always been a good workman, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was when he was in the trade. He will agree that for a fair day's wage there should be a fair day's work. We are not getting a fair day's work at present. I am not going to say that it is the men's fault. Much of the labour is unskilled, and many of the men have never been in the building trade before. They have to be organised; and they cannot organise themselves. If they are dumped down on a job, waiting for the foreman to turn up or for the material to turn up, you cannot blame them if they stand about. We hear some cases of men playing cards on the job; but what do you expect when a man has nothing else to do but twiddle his thumbs, because the work is not organised for him. I have talked to individual after individual, and they have told me how work is not planned so that some men spend a day putting a couple of panes of glass into a window. It is not the men's fault. Even if they go into the Army they have to look to their officers or non-commissioned officers to lead them. Those men, who have been organised under the Ministry of Works, are not getting results. I would not mind if this matter were treated as a military

evolution, but I would then ask for military conditions to be considered. You cannot fight wars with an unorganised mob. The only discipline and organisation which many of these men recognise is in their allegiance and loyalty to their own employers.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Can the hon. Gentleman give any instances of the sort of thing he is speaking about? It is a very serious matter, and there should be some proof given. He ought to be able to say that he knows where disorganisation has been caused by ineffective orders from the top.

Mr. Bellenģer: It is not ineffective orders from the top, but ineffective orders from far lower down. It is not the generals—if I might so call them—in the Ministry of Works, or even in the Ministry of Health; it is some of the junior officers and N.C.O.'s, far lower down than that. I should be wasting the time of the House if I gave specific instances. I suppose every hon. Member could give instance after instance confirming what I am saying, that many of these men are badly organised. If this matter is to be treated as a military evolution there will have to be different methods which I do not think the building industry would tolerate. Methods of dragooning such as we know in the Services are all right for fighting battles, but they are no good for repairing war damaged houses. They have to be very carefully done, and unless the whole of the industry is to be nationalised—which may be a possibility some time but I do not think it is at the moment—you must operate your own private enterprise, about which hon. Members talk so freely, properly. We are getting neither fish, flesh nor fowl at the moment, but good red herring.

Captain Cobb: The hon. Member and his friends are messing about with State control.

Mr. Bellenģer: I am not going to enter into controversial matters such as that. I will leave that to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister at appropriate weekends.
My hon. Friend has referred to concentration on war damage and war damage only. I would not go the whole distance with him on that, because I believe there is a considerable amount of maintenance


work to be carried out in order to stop serious dilapidation occurring in those houses which have only been slightly bomb damaged, or have not been bomb damaged at all, and are standing empty. Take one illustration—dry rot. Kensington Borough Council, and I believe other borough councils, have issued warning notices to property-owners, estate agents and so forth stating that there is a serious danger confronting London as a result of dry rot in unoccupied properties. What is dry rot? Its inception is in wet rot—dampness. Sometimes the term is misused. The fact remains that to-day there are empty houses which have been rotting for the war years, with dry rot spreading because of the dampness, and these ought to be tackled now, unless we are to get the infection spreading to other neighbourhoods. It is a well-known fact that the spores of dry rot spread through the air and contaminate other healthy dwellings. We will have to carry out a certain amount of maintenance work, and I go so far as to say, with practical experience in this matter, that there is a lot that I and other people in a similar position could do to organise part-time workers—men who come in for a week-end or a light summer's evening and give a hand. They will not do it for the local authority or for the Ministry of Works, but they will often do it for an employer who knows the advantages and disadvantages and who lives on the spot.
If one wishes to do anything costing over £10 in that way, one will have to go to the local authority for a licence, and any one who goes to the local authority for a licence of that sort knows the inordinate length of time and waste of effort involved in getting anything like an acceptance, or even a refusal. Indeed, as far as decorations are concerned, some local authorities refuse point blank. Yet if one goes to other boroughs one sees plenty of decorations, and one wonders where the policy is. There is no policy at all. Take the case of Newmarket. That case has received some publicity. There are two other cases which were mentioned in the "Daily Mail" to-day. They show that some local authorities are prepared to "cock a snoot" at the Minister's £10 licence.

Mr. Hicks: Does the hon. Member know that that application has been refused?

Mr. Bellenģer: Yes, I know the Newmarket case has been refused, but it was not refused by the local authority. It was only because it was carried to the Ministry of Health that it was refused.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Sandys): I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has made several misstatements. With regard to that last statement about the Newmarket case, the amount involved was far in excess of that which the local authority was empowered to approve. It had to come to the Ministry of Health in any case. It really got into the Press before it was finally dealt with. As to the other case about the £10 limit, the average time taken to deal with these licensing cases, with all the other work which local authorities have to do, is under a week, and I do not think that is bad.

Mr. Bellenģer: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not know what is happening in the local authority areas, because I have known cases which have taken longer.

Mr. Sandys: That is an average.

Mr. Bellenģer: I know that the right hon. Gentleman says so, but these applications for licences are piling up in the town halls. As for the Newmarket case, I do not see that his remarks justify his assertion as to a mis-statement by myself. I merely said that an application was made to the local authority to do repairs which were excessive; that it was approved by the local authority and was turned down by the Ministry of Health. There are two other cases to which the right hon. Gentleman can refer and see what is happening there. I can assure the House from my own experience, that I can go to one borough in London and get work carried out, whereas in another borough I cannot. There is confusion at the Ministry of Health as to the policy governing these matters. Whatever the reason is, the fact does remain that war damage repairs are not being done. The right hon. Gentleman can laugh about it if he likes, but I assure him that this is a serious matter to the thousands of people who, not like him, have to live in these badly blitzed houses, and unless they get a quick answer or an assurance that their troubles will be attended to quickly, it will be worse for the right hon. Gentleman and his Government.

4.25 P.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: Our congratulations are due to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) on his luck in the draw. I am sure that any other hon. Member from a heavily bombed district who was as fortunate as he, would have selected this subject for debate. My regret is that the Debate has had to be postponed until now, because it would have been more timely had it taken place six or eight weeks ago.
My regret about the nature of the hon. Member's speech is that in a situation which is part white and part black, and a good deal grey, he picked out only the black spots for comment. In fact, if he reads his speech to-morrow morning in HANSARD he will see that he gave too dark a picture of what has actually been accomplished. He knows a good deal about my constituency, as I know about his, and there is no danger of either of us underestimating the vast amount of work that has to be done in London. But it does not contribute to the accomplishment of that work in the earliest possible time, which ought to be the one object of all of us, if we merely concentrate on those items in the organisation which have not been as satisfactory as they should have been, arid if we fail to give any credit where credit is due. I know all about the reaching of the winter target not having been as brilliant an achievement as some platform orator might suggest, but I have never heard any Government spokesman refer to it with complacency. To me it seems to be one step in a very long journey, and the moment has come when we must be planning the further steps. In my judgment, since the task has been co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, there has been a steady improvement in the London organisation, and in particular I should like to pay tribute to the achievement of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve during these last eight months. There are points on which I have disagreed with him, and I might disagree with him again, but generally speaking I know of no man in England who could have set about this thankless task more energetically, vigorously and skilfully than he has done.
One of my criticisms concerns the way in which publicity has been handled. Not enough has been done either by the Ministries concerned or, more particularly, by the local authorities to keep all the

hundreds of thousands of people who are affected by bomb damage continuously informed of what the plan of organisation is. I know the leaflets which the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has quoted and which have been left at houses, and I know the circulars and serial notes which have been issued, but one of the first lessons a publicity agent learns is that it is not enough to say a thing once. You must go on saying it until it has sunk into people's minds. That is all the more important with a problem like this, which affects the emotions of everybody concerned. The lesson which Field-Marshal Montgomery has taught the Army is that you must make sure that every man, right down to the bottom, knows what it is all about. Something of the same kind is still missing in regard to publicity work concerning bomb-damage repairs. People are still not sufficiently clear as to the various stages of repairs, for instance, and as to what precisely is laid down in the repair standards which the hon. Member quoted. Now that perhaps the strictest degree of security silence as regards what is called winter damage may be near passing away, I would like to put in a plea that, in future, the periodical statistical announcements concerning progress made in different areas shall not be confined to groups of boroughs, parts of the London Region, but shall be given on the basis of individual boroughs and authorities. Apart from everything else, that will help the more lightly damaged boroughs to realise how heavy is the damage remaining to be done in other places, and where damage has been heavy it will help people in those areas to realise that outside their boundaries too there is an immense amount of work waiting to be accomplished.
On this point of publicity, will the Ministers concerned do more than has yet been done to convey to the people of this country generally what the summer programme is? I know that Circular 54 has been issued, but it has received little publicity in the national Press and virtually none in the local Press; yet this is the circular which defines the main plans on which the Government are going to work from 31st March onwards. I know that no Minister can do it all himself. I regret that the local authorities are not more active in, for instance, arranging frequent Press conferences with the local papers where the latest news on repair policy


can be given. If publicity for essential facts were improved, people would understand and more helpfully co-operate with the plan that is being carried out. With regard to Circular 54, I wonder whether further information could be given as to future intentions for what is known as the winter damage areas. Those areas which suffered their main damage last summer from V1 are now to be authorised to carry out repairs up to a higher standard, the standard of Serial 25. The winter damage areas are those which suffered damage from V2 or additional damage from V1 since last September. The only guidance which these areas receive is in paragraph 5 of the circular:
In the winter damage areas, repairs will be limited to the standards laid down in Serial 56 until all or most of the houses in these areas have been dealt with.
The position may be reached within a few weeks in some of those areas, and so far, to the best of my knowledge, local authorities in those winter damage areas have not received further guidance, and cannot obtain it from this circular, as to what is to happen next, when all their houses have been brought up to the low standard of Serial 56.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) spoke about licences. My experience is that decisons on licence applications are not being terribly held up by local authorities just now. In the majority of cases the reason is that virtually no licences are being granted. What is the history of this? The £10 limit was introduced in London at the beginning of October. Then it was found that some local authorities were being too generous in issuing licences. So three months later the Government issued a further circular warning local authorities of this and advising them that they must only issue licences in cases of utmost urgency. The second circular was necessary, because in some places licences were being issued too freely. My suspicion is that that second circular has been interpreted so strictly in some areas that practically no licences at all are now being issued. That is too rigid. I am sure that the £10 limit should stay, and I am glad that it is extended to the rest of the country, but we cannot maintain so low a limit unless a high degree of common sense is exercised by local authorities as to the issue of licences outside the £10. It is difficult to define what

the principle should be, but I suggest it should be this: a council faced with an application for a licence should ask itself one question, "Will the issue of a licence for this work speed up, or not, the date by which all houses in this area will be raised to the standard of repair to which we, as a local authority, are at present working? If the issue of this licence will bring more workers in on to repairs, it should be granted; if it is merely going to transfer some men at present working for the local authority to work instead for a private individual who wants his house done up out of turn, it should be refused." It is not the case that 100 per cent. of the possible labour is working for the local authorities now, nor can it ever be quite 100 per cent. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw instanced the part-time worker who might be brought in; that kind of case ought to be recognised in the issuing of licences.
The hon. Member also referred to the quality of the work being done. He said that there was not a fair day's work being put in. The people of London have reason to be intensely grateful to thousands of men and their employers who have come to London at great personal inconvenience to carry out this repair work. At the same time they have reason to say to others of the workmen, "We would rather you were not here, and that you went back." We all know, for there is no secret about it, that a percentage of the men on the job are not pulling their weight and, as the hon. Member said, are not doing a fair day's work.

Mr. Bellenģer: I said that the cause, except perhaps in an infinitesimal number of cases, is not due to the workmen themselves, who are ready to work, but to the fact that they are not organised to work.

Mr. Brooke: I was about to suggest another reason. That is that we are trying to work these men too long. They have now been working heavy overtime for eight months. What are the present hours of work approved by the Government? From Monday to Saturday 51½ hours, and on Sunday another eight hours, making a 59½-hour week altogether. What is the result? A fair day's work on Sunday is not done. It is the Sunday work which is the least satisfactory, and it is the Sunday work which is paid on the basis of double time.
Can we look ahead to the future programme? That has been sketched in Circular 54, which says that it will be
necessary to maintain, at any rate until the end of June, a large labour force on repair work in Greater London.
The end of June indeed! In the borough I represent I should say that, if it is enabled to retain the full amount of labour which it at present has, war damage repairs will be completed in about two years from now. And when I say war damage repairs, I exclude the rebuilding of all the houses that have been completely demolished. But that has got to be done too. In other parts of the country people have been informed that they can start thinking about rebuilding demolished houses which will cost under £1,500. That stage will not come near us in Landon for years, and yet it ought to be Government policy to try and keep the whole country in line as far as possible. There will be jealousy if one part gets opportunities, and a richer allocation of labour, which will enable it to rush ahead of London. In the borough I represent, there are literally thousands of families with their names down at the town hall waiting for homes—families which have some claim on the borough, or had some connection with it before their homes were lost. Some of these thousands are in the Forces, others have been forced to evacuate from London. These people have to face the grim fact—and we must be blunt about this—that there will not be homes for many of them in London for years. The real crisis that this House will have to meet is not now, when, in my view, war damage repairs are proceeding better than the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will allow, but it will be in the future, when the men are coming back from the Forces and are expecting to find new houses going up but will find they are not because the whole labour force is still required on war damage.
That brings me to my final point. In the Debate on housing a few weeks ago the Minister of Works said that within a year of the collapse of Germany we should be getting out of the Forces 175,000 building trade workers under Class A on grounds of age and length of service, and another 60,000 specially released under Class B. That latter figure is not enough. I plead with the Minister of Works to urge upon the Minister of Labour and his other

colleagues in the Government that it will be utterly useless bringing millions of men out of the Services under Class A on grounds of age and length of service, if they have no homes to come to. It is essential that we should bring out of the Forces at the earliest possible moment every man who can play any useful part in repairing war damage and in rebuilding England.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Astor: I have occasionally been a constructive critic of the Minister of Works, but I think the attendance of London Members in the House for this Debate is the best proof that things are not going so very badly. I have devoted a good deal of the Easter Recess to walking round my constituency and going to the main incident areas, and I can honestly say that, by and large, people are very pleased with the way the war-damage work is being done, especially in view of the winter handicaps of weather which were much greater than anybody could have expected when the Minister laid down his programme. I think that, on the whole, the people in London are pleased with the spirit in which the work has been done. Attacks which have occasionally been made on the workmen are, generally speaking, unfair. People do not realise that the workmen in London now are often elderly men, who have some physical disability and who have not the degree of skill and cohesion of a pre-war group of London skilled building trade workers. Making allowances for these difficulties, one can say that they have, generally speaking, done extremely well. One can also say that the materials are now coming along, and one hardly ever hears of a case of work being held up for lack of them.
The cases of complaint are usually due to firms being moved again and again. There is one street in my constituency where five different firms have been on the job. This is due perhaps to incidents elsewhere, but, whatever the reason, different lots of men follow each other on a job, and that is what gets the housewife down. It is hoped that one firm will be allowed to see a job through. We want a little more tolerance too as regards decorations. It makes all the difference if a coat of distemper can be put on. A housewife, particularly if she is elderly, does not feel she has the energy to fix up the curtains and put the furni-


ture straight if, at a later date, she will have to move them again for redecoration. Many firms are giving one coat of distemper under the heading of cleansing. The house looks far nicer and the lady of the house is far happier as the result. I hope that such tolerance will be increasingly exercised. We hope also that when they put up plaster board it will be of a type that can be plastered over and made permanent.
We have also to consider the question of the shops. A shop is vital for the life of a community and for the little shopkeeper, and, in my constituency, we have people corning back from the Services who want to try to get their shops going again. Is it possible to make some concession, in regard to shops and their repair, so that a little more discretion could be given to local authorities on which they could work? In view of what the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) said, and circumstances being what they are, I think we ought to put the Portal houses rather close together and not work to the ideal standards which you have in the country, but accept the fact that, in London, we have to be a little more crowded. I think it right to say that the Ministry of Works and the men, whether the foremen or the workmen themselves, have done and are doing a job which the people of London appreciate.

4.46 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) said that the people of London were very satisfied with the way in which bomb-damage repairs have been carried out. In many instances, I think that is the case. In the borough in which I live, I have had my house damaged three times, but in no case was the damage sufficient to be reported, in view of the appalling damage which other people had suffered. In each case, however, the repairs were done in an extremely short time, without the damage having been reported.
I agree with the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) that it is a mistaken policy now to continue with Sunday work unless you can find part-time workers who are not engaged on that type of work during the week, but who would be willing to do Sunday work. I do not believe it is a paying policy to keep men

working very long hours and working on Sundays as well. But let me assure the House that, though people in London are, on the whole, satisfied with the speed of the building repairs which have been carried out, the workers who came from the country districts and made great personal sacrifices to do these repairs in London, are by no means so satisfied. I agree with the hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) that there is a very great need for better organisation, and that, if there were better organisation, these repairs could be carried out with greater speed than at present.
One of the things of which these men complain is that in a great many cases there are too many bosses. The local authority will have clerks of works, and, in some cases, a large contractor who has been put in will have other clerks of works, and it is not unusual for men engaged on one contract to be visited by two or three people in the course of the day, all of whom have quite different orders, and this is creating very real discontent and dissatisfaction. These men have come up to London at great personal sacrifice. They volunteered at a time when they might have found plenty of work elsewhere, and, in many instances, they find themselves standing about for three-quarters of the day, not knowing what to get on with next. I think that one of the policies which has made for the slowing down of this work has been the policy of allowing the men only to do repairs in certain districts. It sounds well, but, when a firm of builders engaged on first-aid repairs has to go elsewhere to do repairs in a totally different district, a great deal of loss of time takes place in arranging to leave the one district for the other. They believe that if they were allowed to do a little more than first-aid repairs in the districts in which they are working, instead of being moved to a different part of London, the repairs would be more quickly completed and there would be a great economy in time.
Another difficulty experienced by those in charge is that the men who have come up from the country want to know what their position will be when these repairs are finished, whether they are going back to their own districts and whether they will find work ready for them to do. They wonder if they are to be re-employed by the small builders who employed them in the past. It is a matter of very great


concern to them. They do not want to find that, because they made a patriotic gesture and volunteered to do bomb damage repairs in London they are for ever, while the emergency lasts, to be considered as mobile labour. If their minds could be set at rest on this issue, I think they would be very much happier men.

Mr. Bellenģer: Perhaps the Minister could clear up the point, but are not all these men held under the Essential Work Order?

Mrs. Tate: Yes, but some men have been kept in their own districts, and that is why these men want to know for how long when the emergency is to end they are to be considered mobile labour liable to be sent up and down the country. There is also a certain amount of difficulty about the way in which the contracts are paid for. When cheques are paid by the Ministry of Works, I think it is the quantities surveyor who sends a cheque without a definite statement of how the amount is made up, and, when the various contractors in the district come to pay out, it is impossible to know what is the profit for each contractor. There is a great deal of difficulty in understanding these amounts, because the specific work paid for is not stated when the cheque is sent, and that is creating a considerable amount of difficulty.
Finally, if it were possible for the men who came from the country districts to have a few days' leave or a long weekend, I think that, in some cases, where they have been working very long hours, it would help to expedite the work. Many men have gardens of their own, and have been accustomed to rely on them for vegetables and food supplies, and if, during the spring and the working season in the gardens, they could be given a few days' leave to go home and cultivate their gardens, it would give them a rest and they would come back with renewed vigour to their work in London.

4.54 P.m.

Mr. Logan: I would like to call the Minister's attention to one or two problems affecting the City of Liverpool. I know that the difficulties of his job are very heavy and this is a question of getting the organisation into shape. I am fully in agreement with the Amendment, but it does not lead to the larger measures which we want to discuss, but deals only with work of a temporary

nature for those who have been displaced. If the Minister would take a look along our main roads in Liverpool he would find a tremendous number of shops which have been damaged. If some repairs were done to those shops they could be used. I am not too anxious about the shops themselves, but I am concerned with the accommodation which is found above most shops on our main roads. If we were to have some repairs done, very many of the people who lived in them before would be able to come back to live there. Since the blitzes on Liverpool, has been an exodus. Many people left the city and, amongst them, many of the shop-keeping class, and many of these shops are now derelict. I am unable to understand why some repairs are not done to the housing accommodation over these shops.
I want to refer to this question of mobile labour. Nobody grudges London anything that may be done to alleviate the difficulties of the people of London in their distressful time, but we are most anxious to be in a position to do the best we can for the rehabilitation of our men returning from the Forces. It is no use telling the pitiful story again; everyone knows how sad is the tale of these congested areas. Many thousands of people are to-day without a home, and though, naturally, we are anxious not to oppress the Minister, we do want to elicit some information from him and to urge that this job is of national importance. I want to ask the Minister if it is possible, after the demands of London for mobile labour available have been met, for priority claims to be put forward for our great seaports. I say priority claims of necessity, because I think we are entitled to priority in the large seaports, where we have given of our best, not only in shipping but in the lives of our people, and we have a right to priority for the principal shipyards which have been blitzed.
It is essential for the life of those communities that those who have had to leave should be brought back; and one must also consider that many of them have sons in the Services, who have never seen anything of the effects of the blitz and will return to find that there is no home for them. Priority ought to be extended to these places, and it would be a good thing if the Minister could so adjust the mobile labour position as to give them priority. The nation owes a great debt


not only to Liverpool, but to Hull, Plymouth and other such places, which gave of their very best when they were blitzed simply and solely because they were our principal seaport towns. That being so, nobody would grumble if some priority were given to them, and I therefore leave this matter to the consideration of the Minister, hoping that he will be able to do something for those who are badly handicapped at the moment.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) for having selected this topic, which gives us an opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House, and of the public outside this House, the position which exists in certain areas in Southern England. There are persons who have been rendered homeless during last winter, 'who are still sleeping in shelters, and taking their meals in rest centres, the men going out to their business in different places as best they can, and the women spending their day searching for their belongings amongst the ruins of their homes. That is not an exaggerated picture of what is going on in many parts of Southern England today. I do not blame my right hon. Friend for that state of affairs. On the contrary, I desire to acknowledge the energy, sympathy and imagination which he has brought to his task and to include in that acknowledgment my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary as well, and the Vice-Chairman of the London Repairs Executive, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. But we have reached a point in some parts of Southern England now where it is really no longer possible to re-house the homeless families within the areas of their homes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley drew a picture of a house which had received first-aid repairs. I have visited a good many houses in that state, and those of us who have seen these houses would not, by any means, dissent from the picture which he drew of them. He referred to the progressive reduction in the standard of repairs which has been authorised by the Ministry of Works during the past winter. But it is not fair to draw attention to the progressive reduction in the standard without, at the same time, calling attention to the fact that throughout the period when

the standard was said to have been reduced, there was further damage from rockets, and serious damage occurring all over Southern England. If the former higher standard had been maintained it would not have been possible to have carried out in the areas which were suffering further damage even the simple first-stage repairs which have actually been carried out to a fairly effective standard.
It is desirable that the House and the country should appreciate the magnitude of this problem in Southern England. I take the conditions existing in a district of which I have some knowledge. There are more than 20,000 houses in need of repair. It is a task of the greatest magnitude. I take the figures for a single district because these figures include not only the summer damage but the winter damage as well. It is anticipated that the first-stage repairs for those 20,000 houses will be completed, if no further damage is experienced, by the end of June. That is a state of affairs which reflects considerable credit both upon my right hon. Friend and upon the local authorities, upon whom the bulk of the work has fallen. But these 20,000 houses are already inhabited, and if they are in fact brought up to the standard of first-stage repairs by the end of June, we should not have added any fresh accommodation to that which is available for those families who have been rendered homeless. Therefore, I would say to my right hon. Friend that you cannot separate this question of the repair of damaged habitable houses from the wider and, I agree, more difficult question of the repair or reconstruction of those houses which are no longer habitable. If, in the district to which I have referred, the authorities succeed in reaching their target of repairing 20,000 houses by the end of June it will add little, if any, additional accommodation. But it is also expected that some 250 houses which have been damaged so seriously that they are not at present habitable will have been repaired as well. That is not a very large contribution to the problem of finding additional accommodation for the homeless. There are altogether in this particular district something like 2,700 houses which have been rendered uninhabitable or have been totally demolished. I hope that my right hon. Friend is not going to separate this problem of repairing damaged houses


from the problem of the reconstruction of those houses which have been rendered uninhabitable or have been demolished.
These houses which have been rendered uninhabitable but which are capable of being repaired and the houses which have been totally demolished present at the present time the best opportunity of providing the additional accommodation for the homeless and for the returning Servicemen from the Forces, which is so urgently required. The White Paper which was published before our last Debate referred to this matter, and it was stated that the War Damage Commission are at present engaged in making a survey of those houses which have been rendered uninhabitable by damage. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what progress that survey is making? These houses fall into two classes. There are the house which are less than 30 years old. These houses are expected to qualify for a cost of works payment, and it is essential that the owners of these houses should receive the highest degree of priority, so that their houses may be rebuilt upon their sites at the earliest possible moment. Have any plans been made with regard to the re-building of the houses which fall into the class which will attract the cost of works payment?
Then there are the houses—and there are many of them—which are more than 30 years old, in respect of which it is anticipated a value payment will be made. The re-building of those houses is going to be a more difficult problem than the rebuilding of the houses in the other class. Many of those houses, although perfectly serviceable, were not the type of house that one desires to build under modern standards. They were houses which were built, perhaps, 60 or 70 years ago on a narrow frontage of 16 to 18 feet. That does not comply with modern housing standards, although, if the house exists, it provides a serviceable and comfortable dwelling. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what proposals he has under consideration for the re-building of that class of house. These blitzed spaces, upon which these demolished and uninhabitable houses stood, at present, offer the most readily available sites for re-housing. The sites are fully serviced and situated in the parts of the towns where people desire to live, and it is for that reason that I am pressing upon my right hon. Friend that

he should give attention to building upon them as soon as possible.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer in the limited time still available to me. That is the question of technical staffs for the local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley refers to that in his Amendment, but did not say very much about it in his speech. On this particular matter I desire to press upon my right hon. Friend the urgency of the release of technical staff who have gone into other industries and into the Forces and, in some cases, are working in a civilian capacity for other departments. I absolve him and his Department from any responsibility for the failure to get these men back. I put up a number of these cases to him, and my experience has been that the local officials of his Department have selected very sensibly and very properly the men who ought to be brought back; but then the procedure appears to be that the matter is referred to an inter-departmental committee. I have never had much faith in inter-departmental committees. When it gets into that stage the procedure is dilatory and ineffective, and it does not secure to the local authorities the return of many men whom they ought to have had back.
I could give him a number of instances. I can tell him of a case of an assistant architect, in a borough surveyor's office, 38 years of age, who to-day is a leading aircraftman in the Royal Air Force and, according to the latest information which he sends back to his authority, his principal occupation has been peeling potatoes. This man is urgently needed to assist in the work not only of war damage repairs, but in preparing sites for the houses which will be built later on. I hope that my right hon. Friend is going to be a little firmer in the handling of this inter-departmental committee and, if necessary, I hope that somebody will be given authority to give effective decisions in cases of this nature.

5.12 p.m.

Captain Gammans: I have only three points to raise, and, as time is short, perhaps I may put them in the form of questions. Can my right hon. Friend, when he replies, tell us what has happened about German prisoners? When we had a Debate on housing a few weeks ago, he gave a promise that something


might be done with regard to their employment. I know the difficulties. You cannot use these men on bomb damage repair of individual houses, but there are jobs which German prisoners could do under escort, for example, laying out new roads where temporary houses are to be built, or, maybe, preparing sites for these prefabricated houses that we hope to get from America.
The second point I would like to raise is the dilemma which faces the local authorities in London with regard to temporary houses. If we put the houses on the sites of bombed houses, we cannot re-erect the permanent houses, and the number of people who can be accommodated on the sites in temporary houses is much less than the number accommodated if we put up permanent houses. The alternative seems to be that we should use temporarily some of the public open spaces. To take my own constituency to illustrate my point, if we in Hornsey could use either a bit of Finsbury Park or a bit of Alexandra Park we could put up quickly a large number of temporary houses, which otherwise I do not think we could put up in the borough at all. It would mean an Amendment of Section 143 of the Housing Act, 1936, and I would be glad if my right hon. Friend, or possibly the Minister of Health, could tell us whether, taking London by and large, he does not feel justified in asking the House to amend the Act temporarily in that respect.

Mr. Monta£ue: What about drains and so on?

Captain Gammons: They are all near the main sewers. We shall not be able to put up large numbers of temporary houses unless we put them on bombed sites, which would prevent us from building our permanent houses. I would also ask the Minister whether he thinks we have now got to the stage in the repair of bombed houses when we can get rid of this cost-plus system.
I know it was inevitable when one had no idea of the amount of damage that was done to a house and it was necessary to get on with it in a hurry, but now, when we are getting beyond the first-aid stage of repairs, when we are getting to the repair of the C. (b) houses and the splitting up of the large houses into small

flats, is it not possible to get away from "cost-plus" and adopt some form of contract? It would not only save money but would mean that the job would be done much more quickly, especially—and I think these two things go together—if it is possible to reconstitute some of the small builders' firms who are used to this sort of job and have the necessary experience for it.
My last point, which was referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. G. Hutchinson), is that there is only one real solution to this problem, to get the men out of the Forces, to get back the key men at the top as well as the craftsmen in all branches of the industry. I know we cannot do that while the German war is on, but what worries me is whether the various Ministries concerned are in a position to make a flying start as soon as some degree of demobilisation is possible. For example, has the Minister lists of men in various branches of the Forces whose release he can claim under type B demobilisation, or will there be delay before these men can be found in the various branches of the Forces? I do hope the Minister can give me some definite answers to one or more of these specific questions.

5.17 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) asks that immediate steps should be taken to complete all stages of repairs to war-damaged dwellings at the earliest possible date. That is, of course, exactly what we have been doing for the last six months and what we shall continue to do until the job is finished. All available resources of building labour and building materials from every part of the Kingdom are at present intensively concentrated upon this task. Before outlining our programme of repairs for the future, about which a number of hon. Members have asked, it will, I think, be convenient if I explain what has already been done, what still remains outstanding, and what organisation has been set up to deal with this problem.
Our main concern now is the repair of the damage recently wrought in London first by the flying bombs and later by the rockets. However, the Amendment before us is not restricted to London. Enemy air raids had been taking place in all parts


of the country for nearly four years before the first flying bomb was launched. Over the whole country 3¼ million houses had been destroyed or damaged up to the end of last May. Even in those earlier times London was the principal target. Out of those 3¼ million damaged houses 1½ million were here in London. Fortunately, very substantial progress had already been made with the repair of this earlier damage before the start of the flying bomb attacks. As a result of the 80 days' intense bombardment during June, July and August of last year some 24,000 houses were irreparably destroyed and some 60,000 were so severely damaged as to be uninhabitable. A further 700,000, though still habitable, received substantial damage. These figures, of course, do not include the large number of houses which received trivial hurt and which needed no further repair beyond what was given to them during the field-dressing stage. A repair programme was drawn up last September. Incidentally, I do not think it is altogether fair of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley to complain, as he did, that that programme did not include the damage which was done after September. It is clear that at that date we could only include in the programme of repair those houses which had already been damaged before September.

Mr. Key: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I do not think I was complaining—if I was, I did not mean to complain. All I wanted to get over was the information that was not included. Those are still to be repaired.

Mr. Sandys: I should have thought it was obvious that figures issued in September could not include damage which had not yet taken place.

Mr. Key: But the obvious is often missed.

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Member wished to underline the obvious, he has achieved his purpose. When the repair programme was drawn up last September it was decided as a first priority to give some relief to the occupants of these 700,000 damaged but still habitable dwellings.

Mr. Key: Occupied dwellings.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, mostly occupied. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment complained in rather bitter terms that too

much publicity and the wrong kind of publicity had been given to this target and to its accomplishment. I think he said that the Government had painted a gay and rosy picture of the state of repair and had boasted about the attainment of their target. That is not correct. I challenge the hon. Member to show me any speech made either by myself or by any other Member of the Government boasting, or even expressing more than mild satisfaction with the accomplishment of this target. I am only too well aware of the low standard which we have had to adopt. I am also only too well aware—and said so in a public speech very recently—that there is a vast amount of work still to be done, and I shall refer to that again in a moment.
During the last six months all the available resources have been concentrated upon the repair work entailed in this winter programme of 700,000 dwellings. Naturally, we should have liked to carry out complete and final repairs in each house so that the occupants would not have to be disturbed a second time by the return of the workmen to finish off the job. But this would have meant that large numbers of families would have had to wait many months longer before their turn came. As it is, the people of London have had to wait quite long enough. The majority of the London local authorities took the view that tolerable living conditions must be restored to the largest number of families in the very shortest possible time. They, therefore, limited the standard of repairs to what was absolutely essential. However, the precise standard varied considerably from borough to borough. Moreover, there was a minority of local authorities which were adopting an altogether higher standard. This, in some cases, included full internal decorations. If this had been allowed to continue, it would have meant that some boroughs would either have taken very much longer to carry out their repairs or else would have had to be given a disproportionate allocation of labour. The existence side by side of such varying practices was already towards the end of last Autumn beginning to cause discontent and complaints of unequal treatment. We, therefore, decided, last December, after consultation with the local authorities, to introduce throughout London a uniform standard of repair. The standard


chosen was largely based on the practice which was already being adopted in many boroughs.
The degree of comfort which we have been able to provide is, of course, far below what we all of us would have wished. But any other policy would have meant prolonging still further the misery of countless families living in roofless and windowless homes. The standard which we have had to adopt may be austere, but the necessity for it has been well understood and loyally accepted by the great majority of the people of London.
The simultaneous repair of hundreds of thousands of houses in one city is a building operation such as has never before been undertaken. The organisation to cope with this immense task has had to be evolved and elaborated as we went along. In the light of experience, we have improved our methods and we shall continue to improve them still further. In order to deal with this problem, special administrative arrangements had to be made, both at the centre and in the boroughs. The organisation of bomb-damage repairs inevitably affects a number of different Government Departments. Those who believe in setting up a new Ministry to deal with every new issue might well have advocated the creation of a "Ministry of Bomb Damage Repairs." We did, in fact, set up a very much simpler piece of machinery, namely, the London Repairs Executive. This body has proved to be a most effective instrument for securing quick decisions of policy, and for ensuring unified central control.

Mr. Ballenģer: Under the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Sandys: Not under any one Department. It is an inter-Departmental body. The London Repairs Executive includes representatives of all Government Departments which are concerned with bomb damage repair. Its special effectiveness is due to the fact that it has a small independent staff of its own, which is ably directed by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, who is Deputy Chairman of the Executive. This staff, which has a representative attached to each group of boroughs, is responsible to me, not as Minister of Works, but in my capacity as co-ordinating Minister and Chairman of the Execu-

tive. The officials of the London Repairs Executive have, therefore, the advantage of being able to speak to local authorities or to the building industry in the name of all or any of the Government Departments concerned.
From the start the Government decided to concentrate the task of bomb damage repairs in London in the hands of the local authorities who have statutory powers to carry out this work. If it had been practicable, we should naturally have liked to have left the individual householder free to call in his own local builder to do the repairs. Apart from the fact that many householders would not have been in a position to get this work carried out, it is clear that to have allowed builders to leap-frog from street to street, mending one house here and one house there, would have delayed the general rate of progress, and would inevitably have created a sense of injustice among those whose houses were left out. The only fair and efficient way was to allow local authorities to plan the programme as a whole, and to tackle it methodically street by street. That is what has been done.
These onerous responsibilities have for the most part fallen upon the departments of the borough engineers, all of whom have been extremely short of technical staff. The strain placed upon local authorities has been very great indeed. Some boroughs took longer than others to get into their stride. In a few cases, where the local authority appeared to be finding particular difficulties, we advised them to call in some experienced firm of surveyors or builders to assist in planning the work. By one means or another the overwhelming majority of local authorities have, despite many difficulties, succeeded in creating an efficient and effective organisation. The repair of London is being carried out by a very large number of building contractors, most of whom are small or medium-sized firms. In all, there are about 7,500 engaged on the job. Bomb damage repair consists of a vast number of small jobs, each one a little different from the other. This is ideal work for the jobbing builder.
We have, therefore, contrary to the belief of some of our critics who are constantly asserting the opposite, set out to use the small builder to the very utmost. Out of these 7,500 contractors, less than 600 firms are employing more than 50 men. In order to bring in the


very small builders, many of whom have less than half a dozen operatives, these firms have been grouped into working parties, each with 100 to 150 men. There are over 80 of these working parties, employing in all about 10,000 operatives.

Mr. Belien£er: In order to get the correct perspective of what the Minister is now saying, could he say how many men are employed by these 600 large firms out of the 7,500?

Mr. Sandys: I have not the figure in my mind, but I think it would be quite exceptional for any firm to employ more than 200 or 300. The rate of progress has necessarily been determined by two factors—the supply of building materials, and the supply of building labour. In the early stages it was often materials; latterly, it has been almost entirely labour. The most critical materials have been plaster, plaster board, glass and slates. Action of various kinds was taken to speed up production to the utmost, and at the same time to increase the share of the total output allocated to London. The system of distribution has also been reorganised. Previously local authorities and contractors bought building materials wherever they liked, and in whatever quantities they could get. The result was that some got more than they needed, whilst others had to go short. Thanks to the co-operation of the builders' merchants an effective system for the rationing of scarce materials was introduced some months ago. Total supplies are now allocated among local authorities according to the amount of work in hand. In their turn, the local authorities sub-allocate among their contractors. This system is now working smoothly. I recently arranged for a sample cheek to be made among a number of contractors chosen at random in different boroughs. The results showed that, except in two cases, where the builder himself made a mistake in ordering, there was no shortage of suitable materials. I think it is worthy of note that in the course of this Debate, no criticisms whatever have been made about the supply or distribution of materials. Those who remember the Debate on this subject last December will recall that complaints about materials were quite an outstanding feature in many of the speeches.
The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley asked for more labour to be put on to this job. The labour force on London repairs has been steadily built up throughout the autumn and winter. Some 55,000 men have come to London from the Provinces. These include many Provincial contractors, who have brought with them balanced teams of craftsmen and labourers, complete with supervisory staff. It also includes 4,000 Ulstermen, who have either come over individually or with their contractors. This was a particularly valuable contribution, since it came at a time when our own resources of labour in this country had been exhausted. Large numbers of building operatives travel into London daily from the Home Counties. Many of these were, until the recent extension of the £10 licensing limit, engaged on other less essential work. Altogether, we estimate that the introduction of the £10 limit in London and the Home Counties has increased the labour force available to local authorities for bomb damage repair by well over 20,000. Considerable help has been given at different times by sailors, soldiers, marines and airmen, as well as by men of the United States Army. However, a proportion of these have recently had to return to their military duties. By all these various methods the labour force on London repairs has been progressively raised from 22,000 last June to the present peak figure of 143,000. I am, of course, just as much impressed as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley with the urgency of this problem. However, I feel that, having regard to the general shortage of building labour throughout the country, and the fact that a very large proportion of building trade operatives are not mobile, we really have now as much building labour here in London as is right and it is not the intention of the Government to increase that figure beyond the present level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) commented on the long hours of work. They certainly are long. Judged by normal standards they are too long. Sunday working should not be indefinitely continued. The reason why we have maintained Sunday working for so long is that while the bombardment continues it is very desirable to have a substantial body of workmen ready at hand, who can be transported quickly to the scene of


any new incident, so as to carry out field dressing repairs. When we are quite sure that the end of the bombardment has been reached—and I am certainly not prepared to say that it has—we will reconsider the position in regard to hours.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham also asked that the £10 licensing limit should be applied with less rigidity. We are doing what we can about that. It must be applied with commonsense and in the light of local circumstances. It may 'be right and proper to license in one area a job which it would be quite wrong to license in another. Local authorities in London, who have now had several months' experience, have learned a great deal, as we all have, as to how this licensing system can best be worked. In other parts of the country, to which the limit has been extended, we shall doubtless have complaints for a few months that licences are either being too freely granted or unreasonably withheld. But I am confident that, with a little experience, each local authority, in their own area, will soon learn to strike a proper balance. In order to secure the fullest co-operation between operatives and contractors, we encouraged the trade unions and the employers to set up joint progress committees. These have been formed in practically every borough, and in most cases the meetings are also attended by representatives of the borough council. Any questions which cannot be settled locally are referred to a central progress committee which is presided over by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I have no doubt that these committees have been the means of smoothing out many local difficulties and have contributed materially towards speeding up the work.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) complained that the labour force is being wastefully employed. Other hon. Members on other occasions have accused the workmen of slacking. In an emergency operation of this sort it is all too easy to point out the shortcomings. It is not nearly so easy to find effective remedies. I do not pretend for a moment that our methods or our organisation are perfect. They have already been greatly improved and I intend to do everything I can to improve them still further. I have no hesitation in telling the House what are the two principal weaknesses in

our organisation. Both of them have been referred to during the Debate. The first is the lack of full and effective supervision. We have already done a great deal to tighten this up and we shall persist in our efforts. The repair of bomb damage is, however, an extremely difficult type of work to supervise. In any one week repairs are often going on in as many as 100,000 different houses at the same time. Under these conditions I doubt very much whether builders could ever hope to find enough supervisory staff to control the work as effectively as they would like.
The other, and perhaps the more serious, weakness is the absence of any positive financial incentive to builders and operatives. This is the inevitable result of the cost-plus form of contract. This was referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans). However, it is very difficult to see what other form of contract we could in the circumstances have adopted. This type of jobbing work is rarely done for a fixed price. Moreover, any form of fixed-price contract involves the preparation of a detailed specification of the work to be done before the job is started and also a careful measurement after it is finished. To survey and accurately measure up the repairs needed in several hundred thousand houses would, even with a very greatly increased staff, have taken many months. Every hon. Member knows that the public would not have been prepared to wait for this to be done. Yet, without a detailed survey, neither the local authorities nor the builders could have been expected to enter into a firm contract.
One hon. Member asked what contractual arrangements we were going to make in the future. When we come on to the more extensive repairs which still remain to be tackled, I am most anxious that we should try to get away from the cost-plus type of contract. I am, therefore, arranging for certain experiments to be carried out with a view to evolving a modified basis on which some form of fixed-price contract could he introduced. We have not sufficient staff to carry out a full survey and measure up the job as would be done in peace-time, but I am hopeful that we may be able to devise some compromise arrangement which will at any rate provide some increased measure of incentive.
I readily admit these weaknesses in our methods. Nevertheless, the fact remains that during the last six months a vast amount of solid work has been achieved. Repairs up to the emergency standard have been done to over 800,000 dwellings. Over 100,000,000 roof tiles and nearly 60,000,000 slates have been laid. Over 140,000,000 square feet of plaster board and about 60,000,000 square feet of glass have been fitted. Moreover, the pace of the work has been steadily increasing. Last autumn on an average 100 men were repairing about 17 houses each week. During the last month or two they have been repairing nearly twice that number. I think the House will agree that all this could not have been done had not both builders and operatives been inspired by just as great a sense of urgency as those who accuse them of inefficiency and slackness. Moreover, in assessing the results achieved by the repair workers during the last six months, it must be remembered that the rocket bombardment has been continuing throughout the winter. Fresh damage has been occurring daily. Again and again the repair squads had to be taken off their job and hurried to the scene of some new incident in order to provide emergency protection to the houses damaged by the explosion. I think those hon. Members who have visited new incidents will bear witness to the fact that workmen get down to work extremely quickly, very often within half an hour of the rocket falling. As often as not it would be two or three days before the workmen were able to get back again on to their own job. In all, many hundreds of thousands of man-hours have been lost in this way.
The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley asked what priority is to be given to bomb repairs in the future, and other hon. Members have asked similar questions. The priority to be accorded will, of course, vary in each area, depending upon the volume of repairs still outstanding. In London the problem is still acute, whereas in many other parts of the country repairs, as distinct from rebuilding, have long ago been completed. It would not even now he wise for me to give detailed figures of the effect of the rocket bombardment during the past winter. I can, however, without any risk, tell hon. Members that in the London region there are still between 250,000 and 300,000 damaged but occupied houses which are in need of

urgent attention. These are in the same category as the 700,000 which we have been repairing during the winter. One hon. Member said that we must not leave the country in ignorance of the facts. I hope what I have said will make it quite clear that the repairs are still far from complete. I have said this many times before, and am very glad of this opportunity to impress upon evacuees in all Parts of the country that conditions in London are still far from normal.
These damaged houses must, of course, be repaired as quickly as possible up to the emergency standard, and top priority is being given to this work. This new damage has not been distributed at all evenly. For the purpose of repairs, we have therefore had to divide the boroughs of London into two categories, those that have suffered heavy damage during the winter and those that have not. We are allocating to the severely affected areas all the labour that they are capable of absorbing and that it is possible to transport. In this connection, certain hon. Members have said that it is wasteful to transport these men such long distances. If we are really to tackle the job energetically in the affected areas and push into them the absolute maximum amount of labour, it is, I am afraid, necessary to transport large numbers of workmen, often quite long distances. We are doing what we can to increase the accommodation locally. In some cases we are building temporary hutments to house the workmen on the spot, but even so it will still be necessary to bring in a considerable number daily from outside—

Mr. Bellen£er: Would it not be possible, for that purpose, to utilise the volunteers from outside, who are essentially mobile, rather than to take more or less immobile men from one borough and send them to the other side of London?

Mr. Sandys: Naturally that is what we try to do, but there is still a balance that has to be transported. Until these urgent repairs are completed it will be necessary to keep a large number of provincial workmen and contractors in London. I can, however, give a firm assurance that we do not intend to bring any further men from the provinces into London. I hope this will set at rest any anxieties which there may be in provincial cities on this score. I feel that London has received its fair share of the


labour force available. Its need is very great, but there is also much pressing work to be done in many of the great provincial cities.
In those other parts of London where the emergency stage of repairs is now completed local authorities have been asked to concentrate in the first place on those types of work which will provide accommodation for an additional number of families. This will include both the repair of lightly damaged empty houses which have hitherto been left out of the programme, as well as the restoration of other houses which were so heavily damaged that it was not practicable to tackle them last winter. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley reckoned that there were at least 100,000 of these heavily damaged houses still outstanding. We have recently made a thorough survey. In the London region there are under 40,000 of these severely damaged but repairable dwelling houses. However, a proportion of these are slums, or obsolete property, which would not be worth repairing and which the local authority would not wish to repair. I am sure the House will agree that in London we are right in according the very highest priority to the completion of these emergency repairs to occupied houses, and such other work as will provide additional accommodation for a further number of families. However, we cannot expect that the long suffering people of London can indefinitely endure the austere conditions which have been imposed upon them by this emergency standard, and we hope that, provided it does not interfere with the provision of accommodation for additional families, it may be possible before the end of the Summer to start on the immense task of completing the final stage of these repairs, including if possible a certain amount of internal decoration.
I have spoken so far of London. In most provincial towns bomb damage repairs are already largely completed. In almost all places occupied dwellings have long ago been attended to. Even the more heavily damaged properties have for the most part been repaired. I am not, of course, referring to the rebuilding of totally destroyed houses. In the whole of the rest of England and Wales there are not more than 10,000 severely damaged but repairable dwelling houses which have not been already tackled. In Scotland there

are less than 100. Moreover, a high proportion of these properties have been deliberately left over, because the local authority does not consider that they are worth repairing. However, there are a small number of provincial cities, including one or two which have suffered from recent attacks, where there is still a substantial amount of repair work outstanding. I propose to examine each of these cases and, where there is evidence that hardship is being experienced, I shall consider returning to them all or part of any labour that has been brought to London from those places. I think that is only fair.
The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley asked for more technical staff for local authorities. He has put his finger on a very important point. In all this work of repair and rebuilding and of new house construction, local authorities have been severely handicapped by the lack of adequate technical staff. So many of their trained surveyors, engineers and architects are now away serving in the Forces, and it has been very difficult indeed to find others to take their places. However, a number of local authorities have obtained considerable relief by farming out a proportion of their work to outside professional firms. Where this has been tried, it has usually proved most satisfactory and I very much hope that this practice may be further extended. Meanwhile every effort has been made by the Service Departments to release any technical officers who can be spared. In recent months some 180 technical and supervisory staff have been released and 140 from Government Departments. In addition, the War Office have recently lent 30 sapper officers to London local authorities to help them with bomb damage repairs. While the German war continues it will, I fear, be difficult to release any larger numbers. I can, however, assure the House that the Government are well aware of the importance and urgency of this matter. It has, in fact, been decided to release within a week or so of the end of hostilities in Europe at least 1,000 technical officers. These will mostly be selected from lists submitted by local authorities. As I have explained, the repair of bomb damaged houses is now largely a London problem. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley has asked to be assured that as far as practicable we shall press on with the completion of


repairs to damaged dwellings as quickly as possible. I fully share his sense of urgency. He and I are both London Members. Like all other London Members, we know the distress, discomfort and frustration which so many London families are still having to endure. The people of this great city have borne their afflictions with dignity and forbearance and we are determined not to try their patience for a moment longer than can be avoided.

6.12 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I think the number of houses that has been repaired shows that the London Repair Executive under Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve has done an exceedingly good job. I hope that the 300,000 occupied houses which still remain to be done, will be given the utmost repair in the coming months, because the real problem of London does not start until that repair has been done. We have all the unoccupied houses; we have also to rebuild London, which is a colossal job, and until we can get this repair work out of the way, we cannot start in any big way on rebuilding our great city. My right hon. Friend admitted two defects in the organisation of this repair work—lack of supervision and lack of incentive. My experience is that, recently, there has not been so much lack of supervision, owing to the number of supervisors that the Ministry and the Ministry of Labour have been able to provide, but that the supervisors themselves have had no incentive. So it comes back to one fault, rather than two which my right hon. Friend ought to tackle, and that is the lack of incentive not only among the workmen but among the supervisors. I hope we shall be able to get rid of that fault also in the near future, by getting back to some form of contract, so that there should be an increased amount of incentive given not only to the workmen but to the supervisors and the building trade, and particularly to the small builders, who ought to be given their head at the earliest moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1945

CLASS VII

MISCELLANEOUS WORKS SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £25,845,065, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for expenditure in respect of miscellaneous works services, including certain new works and buildings, historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery, certain housing estates and certain grants in aid."—[Note.—£2,922,000 has been voted on account.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again "—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn] put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TRANSPORT COMMAND (SAFETY OF PASSENGERS)

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I beg to move (under Standing Order No. 8), "That this House do now adjourn."
I do so on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Government to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of passengers carried by Transport Command. Just before the House rose for the Easter Recess we were all shocked to hear the Prime Minister announce the lamentable death of a new Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Commander Brahner), who had hardly assumed office when, in the course of his duties, he was killed in an air crash. This accident was one of many that have shocked the House. There was also the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) who was killed before Transport Command was set up. This House has since lost three Members and the country has, in addition, lost the services of some very fine officers and other persons travelling for the Foreign Office and other Departments on important national business.
There was the crash which lost to the House the services of the hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Bernays) and the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Dermot Campbell). Then we had the crash to which I have referred,


involving the death of the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe. On the way to the Yalta Conference, there was a serious crash in which many persons connected with the Foreign Office were killed. Three weeks ago there was a crash in connection with a flight from the Azores—I am not quite sure of the date. I understand that between 16 and 19 persons were killed. So far as I am aware, there has been no reference to this accident in the English Press at all. Then there is the crash to which hon. Members will have seen a reference in the "Daily Express" stop press edition this morning and in which I gather that two persons were killed and something like 14 were injured. All those planes were under the control of Transport Command. It is interesting to note that neither on the tape nor in the evening Press is there any reference to this last accident. Whether it is because no important personage has been killed I do not know. It may he that crashes are so common with ordinary aircraft under Transport Command that no news value attaches to them, unless some very important personages are involved.
Let me come back to the crash in which Commander Brabner lost his life. I should like to refer to one remark made by the Prime Minister. He said:
I cannot think anything short of the most intense care and effort have been taken, but such journeys cannot be wholly free from an element of danger."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 1379.]
I propose, with the permission of the House, to put my finger, as I think I can, on four or five causes which are removable and should be removed, even by orders to-night from the Secretary of State for Air, if he and the House of Commons think there is anything in what I am saying.
I am not quite sure of the date, but I think it was on 20th March, or about three weeks ago, that there was an air liner, a Liberator, landed, in the ordinary run of the schedule, at the Azores. It was piloted by a Czech. He was due to take off at 6 o'clock on the following morning—a Tuesday. The pilot received instructions from the briefing officer, whose name is ascertainable though I do not know that there is any point in mentioning it here, that he had to take off the night before. I do not mean the

night of his arrival but before the Tuesday morning, and in the dark. The wind was in a direction which necessitated using an East-to-West runway, the length of which is 6,200 feet. Within three miles of the end of that runway is a small series of hills 800 feet high. He was heard to say that he would rather take off in the daylight. In fact, I am afraid he was almost ordered to take off at night, the terms of the order being: "Unless you do take off to-night, you will have to give your reasons in writing." I understand that the briefing officer at the Azores was the normal representative of Transport Command, and no doubt he was himself carrying out orders.
Well, the pilot took off according to orders. As I say, he was a Czech pilot, and I gather that he had not a very good knowledge of the English language. The control officer in the control tower saw that he was heading direct for those hills and told him to turn to the right. My informant was either there at the time or there very soon afterwards and is a man who has had between 20 and 25 years' flying experience. He tells me that neither he nor any person at that height, with that flying experience and in those conditions, would have taken off with that Liberator on that night, with that load, and in that direction, and that, in fact, senior officers would have refused to do so. As my right hon. Friend no doubt knows, there have been certain refusals by pilots of Transport Command to carry out instructions. Many of them, American civilians, have resigned, for reasons which I do not think I shall go into at the present time. Whether the pilot understood English well enough or not is, of course, not known. What did happen was that he obviously did not turn to the right. Possibly he could not turn to the right. If anything, he was found slightly on the left of his course. I gather that it is quite likely that he might easily have been forced, by drift or something of that kind, to the left, without any action on his part. [HON. MEMBERS "What happened?"] He crashed straight into those hills, and between 16 and 19 people were killed.

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: rose—

Mr. Bowles: I will answer any question afterwards. An inquiry wag held on the


island. My information is that the briefing officer was called to give evidence, and that when he gave this evidence, "I told him that he had to take off this night," either that was recorded and expunged from the record, or it was refused and not recorded. That is a serious allegation, by the way. I shall put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air to-morrow, asking for details of this matter, and I hope that he will be able to give a satisfactory reply. If the statement is true that that evidence was refused, on grounds I understand, that "after all, this is an inquiry into the cause of the accident, and what you told somebody to do before is not relevant," that does not strike one as being a very fitting inquiry.
I have come to the conclusion that the Air Ministry is the wrong body to inquire into these accidents. In the old days, as the Minister knows, if there had been an accident in civil flying by an ordinary private pilot, an Imperial Airways crash or any other civil accident, there would have been a coroner's inquest, which might or might not have come to the right conclusion, and an inquiry by the accident officer of the Air Ministry. If the accident had affected an Imperial Airways machine, that organisation would also have had its own inquiry. We are now in a position in which every Air Ministry accident is inquired into by the Air Ministry. I hope that, by what I am going to say later, the House will be sufficiently shocked to demand tomorrow—I suppose it cannot be done to-night—that a Select Committee be set up to inquire into what has actually happened, so far as Transport Command is concerned.
I pass to the second heading of my speech. The pilot was accompanied by a co-pilot on this occasion. There is a great tendency on the part of Transport Command to discourage the carrying of co-pilots. At sea, it is incredible that any ship of any size should go to sea without having one or two people who can run the ship while the captain is sleeping, but in Transport Command there is a definite reluctance, as I shall show later on, to employ co-pilots. On this occasion, there was one. He was an Englishman who had done 200 hours' flying, which is not very much. He had never handled a multi-engine machine, or landed or taken off a Liberator. Obviously, he would be able to

understand the directions from the control officer, but from what I have been told, it seems very likely that he would not have been able to see sufficiently quickly by reading the instruments, whether the instructions from the control tower were being carried out. I repeat that there is a tremendous tendency on the part of Transport Command to do away with the co-pilot system.
I am making no general statement whatever, but there is a certain proportion of men among the pilots of Transport Command who are ex-bomber pilots. When they had been on bombing raids they did not have a co-pilot and they felt that they were able to get away quite safely from flying over Germany, through flak and so on. There is a tendency for that type of pilot not to feel the need for a co-pilot. A friend of mine flew back exactly aweek ago from Algiers to this country. He is a person who has given me a certain amount of information, and I am certain that the Minister can find out who he is. He is not afraid of his name being mentioned, but I do not think there is any point in dragging in names. He came as a passenger on a plane from Algiers and he landed at Marseilles and came on to this country. He said that the co-pilot was a blonde from South Africa. [HON. MEMBERS: "A what?"] A blonde—a lady blonde. I am sure that neither the Minister nor any other hon. Member has any objection to blondes as such, but anybody with experience of flying would feel that the machine was in less competent hands, if a blonde was at the controls while the pilot was in the lavatory.

Mrs. Tate (Frome): May I ask who the blonde is? Is the hon. Member suggesting that she could not fly?

Mr. Bowles: No, there are hundreds of able women who can fly perfectly well. If the hon. Lady happens to be a blonde, she need not be so excited. I would like to show exactly how the blonde happened to get into this position. My friend, who is an officer of high standing, turned to another man in the plane and said, "This is a pretty shocking position." The other man was a wing-commander coming back from India. There was only one pilot on board, and he was a boy of about 22 years of age. He was flying for 19 hours out of every 24. I can prove this fact, but I am hopeful that a Select Committee will be set up. The pilot, as a human being,


naturally wanted to go to the lavatory. In this case, the automatic pilot had unfortunately failed. The pilot put his head in the cabin and asked: "Are there any qualified pilots here to take over while I go into the toilet?"
Now these things are serious and it is part of my case that there is a tremendous reluctance on the part of Transport Command to employ co-pilots. I understand—and my right hon. Friend can check it up if he wishes—that one particular pilot had flown 88 hours in II days in a round trip to India. I understand that it is a rule of the Air Ministry that if a man has done 125 hours in 30 days, he has to have a medical examination. Of course if he has done 124 hours in 29 days, he does not. As I say, I think there is a certain desire on the part of the Air Ministry to see that men such as these are medically examined, but I would argue that for a boy of about 22, flying 19 hours out of 24 and in sole control of an aircraft, to be forced to say to his passengers that his automatic pilot has gone wrong and that he has to ask for assistance because he wants to go somewhere, indicates a serious position.
I am not going to make any general attack on any body of men but I think it is true to say, and I am not afraid to say it in this House, that a large number of men who may have been first-class and most courageous bomber pilots are not fitted, in outlook, to be transport pilots in control of transport planes. I have heard this myself and I am sure hon. Members also have, that for some time pilots have been taken off operations and transferred to Transport Command. Transport Command has done other things besides carrying passengers. It tows gliders, drops paratroops and goods, and so on, but so far as carrying passengers is concerned, you can hear bomber pilots saying to one who has been transferred, "What are you doing now? Are you just a chauffeur to some of those civilians?" It is quite natural and typical for people of that kind, particularly for those who have been through great danger and have fought over Germany, to have a joke at the expense of a man transferred to Transport Command. Also, some of us have heard, and I think it is quite true, that these bomber pilots have what might seem to be a reasonable objection to carrying live cargo, as opposed to bombs. A large

number of persons connected with the Air Force agree that, mentally, pilots such as these have to readjust themselves to realise that their job is to carry people carefully, comfortably and safely. I think, to some extent, that has been lacking. There is a natural ebullience in men who have experience in bombing Germany and so on, who feel they are able "to take it," who do not want to bother about a co-pilot, and who believe they can take off in any kind of weather.
This leads me to the point where, according to a letter in "The Times" the right hon. Gentleman was led to say that the pilots really had the final word as to whether they took off or not. The gentleman who wrote the letter to "The Times" thought that was quite wrong, although I differ from him. He thought it wrong that the pilot should be the captain of his ship in matters of this kind. He thought the pilot should be directed by some person on the ground, because he apparently had been an aircraft manufacturer at some time, and he only allowed his pilots to take off, if he himself was satisfied with the conditions. He added that he had had no accidents fatal or otherwise. I think the House would take this view of the matter, as also would experienced people, that the captain must be captain of his ship; that he must decide whether, having regard to all the known factors, the weather factors and so on, he should or should not take off. I understand it is very unlikely that you could ever force a pilot to take off if he did not want to, but if there is any real or good reason why he should not have taken off, then I say there should be no objection to Transport Command or B.O.A.C. asking him exactly why he did so. But it must not be done like a military order, That is the fundamental thing. The gentleman who wrote to "The Times" seemed to think that there was a tendency on the part of the pilot to take unnecessary risks, because he might be thought to be frightened. That might be so, but if so, then that kind of person was not fitted by experience to be a transport pilot. He might employ two years very usefully in being a second pilot, with experienced and older pilots.
The next thing I want to refer to is the condition of the aircraft. I am told that some of the aircraft of Transport Command is, in the words of some people, "trash." I am told also that there is a


lack of equipment and replacements. Another thing, and I am not casting any aspersions at all, is that, naturally, it takes some time for British personnel to understand American transport and the aircraft engine, and the maintenance is done, I am told, rather more by rule of thumb than by an intelligent understanding of the machine. I have heard this phrase used and I must put it on record, because I am trying to give the House as clear a picture as I can of the information I have received. It is that owing to the lack of suitable aircraft, pilots have to "plug what we have." That is not a very happy phrase for pilots to use, or even for pilots to get into their minds.
The whole thing is wrong, so long as there is a military hierarchy in charge. I am perfectly convinced that if the Air Council took advice from people who, perhaps, have had more experience with transport pilots than they have, they would come to the conclusion that there ought to be a change of method in this matter. Of course so long as transport is under the R.A.F. and the Air Ministry, then we are bound in the very nature of things to have a general military set-up. I feel this very seriously. I have tried out these ideas on a very diversified crowd of people in one walk of life or another. I can assure hon. Members that I have said to them: "Have you anything else you wish to give me in order to help me to say everything concerning these things?" They have told me "No, you have covered all the points; you have got everything."
I think it is quite wrong to command a pilot to take off against his will, particularly in the circumstances that obtained on that dark night in the Azores to which I have referred. I think it quite wrong that the pilot should not have with him an experienced second pilot and I think also that care must be taken to choose the pilots, who, despite their great bravery over enemy territory and their ability to fly bombers, should be made to understand that this is quite a different job. I go on to say that the conversion course is not satisfactory. Some other kind of test should be given. I find that the courses are rather theoretical. A friend of mine took off from Canada or Newfoundland not long ago. When he got to about 800 feet the engine began to drop back, and although he had his hand on the wheel, he was forced to ask

one member of the crew what had happened. Here I must interpose that there is a tendency not to keep the same crews together, a tendency which I think is wrong. As I say, he asked a member of the crew what had happened and he was told that when they got to a certain height he had one job to do and that was concerned with throttling back the engine. The pilot told the man to go back and fix his eyes on the instruments, and read them every hour, and that would keep him out of mischief. I repeat, the pilots' conversion courses are not satisfactory. Something should be done to make sure that there is some kind of psychological test of the men who are being trained to take over transport planes, particularly to find out whether they are fitted, mentally and otherwise, to be in charge of passengers.
Finally I would say—and this is my main point—that it is quite wrong for the Air Ministry to inquire into its own accidents. I hope the House remembers the great number of accidents which have happened recently. I have had some appalling figures which I have not quoted and some of accidents which have never got into the Press, for instance that in which 19 lives were lost. There was one in the paper this morning but it will not be mentioned any more. I think that the time has come for the House to say that it is concerned about what is happening in Transport Command. The House should set up a Committee to inquire into what is happening. That is the only way in which the House can satisfy itself and, at the same time, allay the very great anxiety on the part of the public generally, on the part of civil servants who may be flying to San Francisco in the course of the next few days, and on the part of many hon. Members who themselves may have to go. I appeal for this inquiry because it needs to be on a very much larger scale than the ordinary departmental inquiry. I hope that after to-night, if the Minister and the House are convinced that these things can be put right, the Air Minister will order a change, and that the position in the future may be infinitely better than it has been in the past.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Moelwyn Huģhes: I have pleasure in associating myself with the Motion moved by the hon. Member


for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and I hope that the House will accede to his request for a Select Committee to inquire into the doings of Transport Command. Without entering into the specific details of all the matters which the hon. Member has brought to the attention of the House, I would beg leave to summarise the incidents which have taken place in recent weeks and commend them to the House as sufficient grounds upon which some action should be taken by this House.
There was first the incident in which two hon. Members of this House lost their lives. In the second place, there was the incident in which a number of important civil servants, on their way to a most important conference, all lost their lives. In the third place, there was the accident in the Azores, to which my hon. Friend drew attention, in which a machine carrying a large number of people had an accident, and some of them were killed and most of them were injured. In the fourth place, there was the accident in which a Member of His Majesty's Government and a number of important officials met their death; and finally the accident to which my hon. Friend referred, which was reported very meagrely in the Press to-day.
These are five accidents that have happened within recent weeks. We listen to the reports on the wireless, we read the reports in the Press, and we hear from time to time that there has been an attack upon Germany by Bomber Command with so many hundred machines, so many escorts. The same thing is reported the next day. We also hear recounted now what happened in the years gone by, in regard to the efforts of Fighter Command, but it is a most astonishing thing that nowhere in the reports of all these accidents, whether the reports were on the wireless or in the Press, is it ever stated that these were accidents of Transport Command. Not a single reference is ever made to Transport Command in respect of the accidents which have happened within the last few weeks. I ask myself, and I hope the House will ask itself, Why is it that those who are responsible for the conduct of these affairs do not, when accidents take place, show themselves prepared to take the responsibility for them? Why is it that the Air Ministry, or the Command itself, does not show that it is Transport

Command which is, in fact, responsible for the machines in which these accidents have taken place?
The explanation is, I submit to the House, a reasonable one. Transport Command has to fulfil a number of different functions which really ought never to be combined within the same Command. In the first place, Transport Command, as a section of the Air Ministry, is quite properly concerned with the transport of effective fighting forces. That, I suggest, is its major and primary duty. It tows the gliders, it provides the aeroplanes from which parachutists are dropped. That is an essential operational function necessarily linked with the Air Ministry and with the operation of our Air Forces. In the second place, Transport Command is charged with the duty of carrying goods and materials for operational purposes or for semi-operational purposes. It has performed, within recent weeks, the heavy task of supplying, at long range, our forward troops with munitions and materials, and Transport Command and the Air Ministry are entitled to the highest praise for it. If it had not been—with the American Forces as well as our own—for the effective organisation of Transport Command in supplying our forward troops, the speed of our advance in Germany would not have been anything like what it has been. That is a perfectly proper function for Transport Command. In the third place, Transport Command is responsible for moving individuals connected with the operations of war, not only those who hold military rank, but those engaged in a civilian capacity in the war effort. It has the duty of carrying them to the appropriate spheres where their duties may be carried out.
Fourthly, Transport Command takes upon itself the duty of moving individuals who are not directly concerned with operational affairs. This is where I think Transport Command is exceeding its proper functions. It is in this sphere that Transport Command has failed to carry out its proper duties, and laid itself open to the strictures which my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has placed before the House. It is carrying out a function which ought not to be carried out by an operational machine. It is engaged in an operation which ought to be entirely divorced from the military organisation. The Air Ministry has shown in this case, as it has shown in every case,


its desire to hang on to as wide an air jurisdiction as it properly can. [An HON. MEMBER: "State control."] It showed it in respect to civil aviation in general. The fight to get civil aviation out of the hands of the Air Ministry had to be fought on the Floor of this House time after time. Again, it was against the will of the right hon. Gentleman and against the will of the Air Ministry that a Ministry of Civil Aviation was ever set up. It was only because this House, in Debate after Debate, urged that civil aviation should be separated from the military machine that a separate organisation for civil aviation was set up.
Here we come across the same attitude, the same approach. The cases which have been cited to the House should have been under civilian control but have, in fact, been retained under military or air domination. We ask that this House should set up a Select Committee to inquire into the reasons for these accidents, to inquire why control over the movements of individuals, which ought to be under civilian domination, is still retained under military domination. Because we ask for that we plead with the House that a Select Committee should be set up.

6.55 p.m.

Captain Pluģģe: I rise to support the plea that a Select Committee be set up on this question. The hon. Member who has moved the Adjournment said he did not want to mention figures. I wish to do so, because I have them in front of me, and they are appalling. It is quite right to say that Transport Command is operating over areas where the war is in progress, but the major part of the operations of the Command take place across the Atlantic, in the Middle East, in Australia and elsewhere, I think the Minister will probably be able to agree that not 5 per cent. of the operations of Transport Commend actually take place over areas where fighting is in progress. If we take passenger-miles as a basis of calculation, and take as datum line the record of American private-enterprise run airlines, on the basis of passenger-miles, we find in the period from 1938 to 1943, that for one corpse turned out by the American lines, Transport Command manages to turn up 80 corpses. I want hon. Members to realise what that figure means. This means that Transport Commend is at present, on the basis of its passenger-miles, killing a passenger for

less mileage than the mileage covered by an aeroplane every time it flies once round the world. A big transport plane, used continuously, would fly round the world probably in a week. These figures mean that Transport Command kills one passenger every time one of its aeroplanes flies round the world, whereas American lines under similar operation of once around the world a week would operate for a year and a half before they killed a passenger. These figures are dreadful and give a true picture of the high relative number of accidents in Transport Command, according to the manner in which it is run to-day—one death per 21,000 passenger-miles.
Why does this happen? Has the Minister some explanation? There may be some, and perhaps he will tell the House why we should have this enormous number of casualties. Let us just stop to think. In America 1,680,000 passengers are flown for one fatality. According to the American passenger-mile standard an American transport plane can go round the world once a week for a year and a half before it turns out a fatal casualty, against the turning out by Transport Command of a fatal casualty once a week. An accident was reported this morning which took place in Canada. There were 18 persons on board, II of whom were passengers, and it is reported that four were killed and 14 gravely injured. We were reminded of the same question just before the Recess, when we were informed of the death of the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Commander Brabner). In the case of which I am speaking it was reported that an oil leak took place, and that the plane, a Liberator, wirelessed to home base what was happening. That gave probably a great deal of time before the plane finally dived into the sea. Had that plane been a flying boat it is possible that it could have ridden on the waves for hours, even days, depending on the weather. I wish to ask, Have we abandoned completely the use of flying boats on these long-distance flights across the Atlantic and Imperial Ocean Routes? I make a strong plea for the Minister to go again into the question of using flying boats for this special work, I know it is stated that speed is gained by using land planes, but safety is just, if not more, as important a factor as speed. No better flying boats have even been built than the


Empire flying boats built in my constituency by Messrs. Short Bros. Short Bros. were pioneer aircraft builders in this country. They constructed the first machines ever built in this country for the Wright Bros. They were also the pioneers of flying boats in this country.
What is happening about passenger planes? Are we ordering them now? Vast factories are being allowed to stand by and close when we could turn out these useful flying boats. Are we building proper aerodromes for Transport Command? America has built two aerodromes at which both land machines and flying boats can be accommodated—the La Guardia Airfield and Edelwild Airport. We are just struggling along with Heath Row, where no provision is made for accommodation for flying boats. At Heath Row the question of fog has to be considered, because planes about to land there will have to fly over London. What does this high rate of accidents in Transport Command show? We are given a forerunner of the result of the proposed White Paper, with its triangular chosen instrument. We can see just where monopoly is carrying us. Safety is being thrown overboard. This shows how necessary it is to open the routes of civil aviation to every one who is willing to operate according to rules and without subsidy so that it will be Great Britain competing against the rest of the world, not only the chosen men of the chosen instrument. The safeguard of a licensing authority is all that is needed. We can then, but then alone, hope to reach the safety of the American lines. I wish to support the setting up of a secret Committee of Inquiry on the operation of Transport Command.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I propose to tell the House something which I think will be of interest. I have never spoken before about this, for reasons which will be obvious, but I think the time has come to say what was my personal experience, and why I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) for bringing this matter before the House. Some time ago I was selected as a member of a Parliamentary delegation, consisting of six Members of the House of Commons and two Members of another place, to go to Canada, the United States and Bermuda. The tour lasted six or seven weeks. I had been

acting as a kind of secretary to the delegation, and after the other members had returned by Clipper I was left alone in Montreal, and arrangements were made for me to fly home on a four-engined Liberator. I got to the airfield at about 10 o'clock in the morning, and I was then, for the first time, given a parachute and verbal instructions on how to operate it, in the event of anything happening to the plane. I could not see the sense of it, because we had been flying over considerable tracts of land without any parachutes, and it was only on the last flight home, when a parachute seemed to me useless, as we should be flying over the Atlantic, that I was given a parachute and instructions to count 10 and then pull it open—" and," said the attendant, "if it does not open you can send in a complaint."
We got on to the Liberator at something after 10 o'clock in the morning. After having stayed inside for three-quarters of an hour, we were asked to go out again, because a pipe was leaking, and had to kill time for half an hour. After half an hour we were told to get some lunch, because it would probably be early afternoon before we could get away. At some time in the afternoon we set off, intending to fly to Gander, in Newfoundland, and then to make the big flight to Prestwick in Scotland. Before we had got very far the landing wheels came down, and would not go up again. The pilot decided to come down on an airfield called Dartmouth, in Halifax, Nova Scotia. It was found that there was no equipment there by which the defect could be repaired, and we had to stay overnight. About noon on Sunday, the defect having been attended to in a way, we started again, and this time we flew to Gander airfield in Newfoundland, where there were said to be certain instruments by which the landing wheels could be repaired. The House will forgive my lack of technical knowledge—I can only tell in a plain way of my experience. At Gander the pilot asked us to get up into the nose of the plane, and to go down on our hands and knees, to make as much weight there as possible, because, as he explained to me afterwards, there would otherwise be a danger that the tail of the plane would land first, and we should break in two. We landed all right and had a meal while the Liberator was loaded up with enough fuel to make the journey to Prestwick.
Then we started away. After we had gone about 400 miles, which, according to my calculation, meant that we had covered 1,200 to 1,300 miles of the journey between Montreal and Scotland, the landing wheels came down again, and would not go up. A good deal of swearing went on between the pilot, the second pilot, the engineer, the radio man, and the navigator. The pilot, whose responsibility it was, decided that, with the resistance created by the landing wheels, he would not have enough petrol to get to Scotland; so he turned back. After having been 1,200 miles on my first flight across the Atlantic, I had to go back. The weather broke, and we had to go 21,000 feet up for five hours. At last we got back to Montreal, in a terrific thunderstorm, and an S.O.S. was sent out. I had the pleasure, which I never want to experience again, of seeing the fire engines and ambulances coming out and lining up, as we looked down in a thunderstorm. The astonishing thing is that, thanks to the pilot, who told us again to lie down in the front, we managed to make a safe landing, and in half an hour I was back in the hotel at Montreal. This was at midnight.
A few hours later they rang me up to say that a car would call for me, to take me back to the airfield, and that they were off again at 10 o'clock in the morning. I found, to my surprise, that it was the same plane. I had by that time almost given up hope that I would ever achieve the ambition of my life, of flying the Atlantic. The pilot seemed to be quite cheerful. Off we went, and we made a landing this time at a place called Sydney. The object of that, as was explained to me, was that instead of having two stops and then going to Prestwick, we were stopping at Sydney and loading with oil. Then, about 50 miles out to sea, on what proved to be the last hop home, the landing wheels came down again. Fortunately, this time they responded to certain treatment, and went up and remained up. The weather was perfect, and we made a perfect landing at Prestwick. There an official came to me, and said: "Is this the aeroplane that has been lost?" I said, "I do not know, but I have just arrived on it." I had not intended to take part in this Debate, but I felt that the House would like to hear in plain words about the experience I had, as a member of a Parliamentary delegation, and about the

haphazard organisation. Similar things occurred when we flew to the other places. I think that, taking this into account, in conjunction with what the hon. Member from Nuneaton has said, a case has certainly been made out for a full investigation. I am no authority on aeroplanes, but I have told, in plain language, my experience as an ordinary Back Bench Member of Parliament, and how I managed to fly the Atlantic one and a half times.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Molson: Sometimes it is the lightest and most enjoyable speeches which constitute the gravest indictment of an Administration. It may well be that the story we have heard from the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) will carry more conviction with some Members than anything that has been said about the disasters by some Members who spoke.before him. At any rate, we have all enjoyed his speech, because he has returned to this House, which has not been the case with all our colleagues who have gone overseas. This is the third time in eight weeks that this matter has been raised in Debate on the Floor of the House, and on each occasion it has been on account of a fatal accident in Transport Command. My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that on the first occasion when it was raised he thought that a panegyric of the Royal Air Force would be a suitable substitute for an answer to the Debate. The second occasion will be memorable to all of us, for that was the last occasion when the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Commander Brabner) addressed the House; and it was the irony of the situation that on that occasion he was seeking to reassure us as to the adequacy and efficiency of the arrangements made by Transport Command. In these circumstances, and in view of the very great difficulty which we all have in obtaining any reliable facts, I think that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has made out a case for some kind of inquiry.
I turn, first of all, to the question of the equipment of these transport planes. On 15th February, the Secretary of State for Air did vouchsafe this information to the House:
It is necessary during war-time that priority should go to the other Commands, whose impact on the enemy is more direct."—


[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1945; Vol. 408, C. 520.]
The Under-Secretary of State on 6th March confirmed what had been the position in the past by saying:
Although it was formed two years ago"—
that is Transport Command—
it has unquestionably not had the same priority as the operational commands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 1987.]
When we consider that these are large transport planes carrying large crews and very important personages, it does indeed seem strange that it should not until now have enjoyed a priority in obtaining equipment. It is at any rate arguable that Sir Trafford Leigh Mallory's impact upon the enemy was as great as that of any airman in the Royal Air Force. On a previous occasion, on the strength of letters which I have received, I referred to the aircraft which were used for transport purposes in S.E.A.C., but I did not obtain any answer, and we do not know whether the Air Ministry consider that those planes are reasonably safe for this purpose.
No one in any of these Debates has called in question the quality of the air crews, but some doubt has been expressed with regard to the special training which is required for this special kind of flying and whether the kind of training which is given to operational pilots when they are transferred to Transport Command is suitable to enable them to discharge their new duties as efficiently as their old ones. On the last occasion the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree) did say he felt it would have been greatly to the advantage of Transport Command if B.O.A.C. had been incorporated with it and had therefore made available the experience gained in transport flying. After all, in transport flying, safety is the primary consideration, which it obviously is not in the operational Commands.
I would like to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Nuneaton concerning the authority of the pilot. It is difficult for a pilot who is carrying important personages to refuse to take off if in his opinion the weather conditions are unsuitable or if the aircraft is not airworthy. A case was reported to me of an air officer who had an appointment in S.E.A.C. with another highly

placed officer, and the aircraft arrived late in Cairo owing to the breakdown of the radio apparatus on three occasions between this country and Cairo. The very important personage who was being carried was anxious not to be late in arriving to keep his appointment, and he wished to take on an extra pilot in Cairo and to fly at night as well as by day. On that occasion the flight lieutenant refused to do anything of the kind which he regarded as more than the aircraft could stand. The right hon. Gentleman might say that that is an example of a pilot who was able to stand up to pressure brought to bear upon him by a senior officer, but we do not know how many pilots have had their judgment overruled and have not been able to come back and tell the story. The same pilot said that on some occasions his aircraft would have carried an excessive weight if he had not checked the matter and insisted on there being a reduction.
Now I come to the question of the training of ground crews and of maintenance. In the last Debate on this subject, the Under-Secretary of State said that the maintenance all through the Air Force was very excellent and that in the case of Transport Command maintenance was on a different basis; it was what he called planned maintenance. But he did not continue, and those who are not expert in these matters are not in a position to say whether this planned maintenance is as satisfactory as the maintenance provided in the operational Commands. He said:
We are putting new blood into this thing"—that is Transport Command—" and it is now getting a much higher priority than it ever had before, both technical and human."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 1987.]
We find some kind of admission that in the past these points which have been said to be unsatisfactory were unsatisfactory. I would like to ask whether anything is now being done to ensure that the maintenance on airfields overseas is as satisfactory for transport planes as it is for operational planes. The same sort of information suggests that many of the meteorological stations are unsatisfactory and therefore the weather reports are inadequate. On i6th February last, when my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and I raised the question of the accident in


which two or our colleagues, Captain Bernays and Mr. Campbell, were killed, it was stated that at the place where the aircraft took off the weather conditions were excellent but the aircraft flew into bad weather, and it would appear in that case that there had been some short-corning in the matter of the weather reports which might have influenced the pilot to turn back before he got into the bad weather conditions which resulted in disaster.
Finally, I come to another matter which is perhaps not so important in itself but which may have a considerable effect upon the efficiency of the air crews. It is said that at a number of these stations overseas adequate arrangements are not made for the accommodation of air crews, and that after the important personages have gone to their hotels the crews are left for as long as an hour on the airfield before a lorry arrives to take them to their humbler dwelling place. In the case of one pilot, on his return from a flight from the Crimea he was obliged to draw a blanket for himself and to find a bed. It is not a matter of great importance but it does add to the discomfort of the men who fly for long hours. I believe everything is done quite properly to prevent pilots from discussing with members of the general public the conditions under which they are expected to do their work. We have now had a melancholy record of accidents. It is of the utmost importance for the future as well as for the present that British transport planes should obtain in a high reputation for safety and reliability. I hope that the Secretary of State for Air, on this third occasion that the matter has been, raised in the House of Commons, will be prepared to go further than he has done in the past and will assure us in the first place that he is conducting a closer inquiry into Transport Command in order to ensure that it shall be provided with the best and safest equipment and aids to safe flying, and also that he will meet the request of the hon. Member for Nuneaton for a Select Committee of Inquiry.

7.25 p.m.

Sir Alfred Beit: I desire to speak only on the subject of maintenance, about which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) has just spoken. It

is a subject upon which I have some personal knowledge from my experience in this war. But before coming to that, I would like to say it appears from the speeches which have been made that accidents, generally speaking, can be divided into two categories. We have accidents which are associated with errors of judgment, or with judgment being overruled, or defective meteorological information. Then we have the second class of accident which is associated with engine failures and defects, and we know less about those than we do about the first category, because they nearly always lead to the total destruction or disappearance of the aircraft. I would like some information as to the proportion between those two classes of accidents.
It is only with regard to the accidents arising from defects that I would like to say a few words because it has a bearing on maintenance. My hon. Friend stated that when the Under-Secretary last spoke he referred to planned maintenance, and my hon. Friend said he did not know what it meant. I can tell him. During the years I was at Bomber Command as a technical officer, I had something to do with the work of drawing up plans for planned maintenance, which consists of drawing up elaborate schedules to decide which type of overhaul should take place at certain intervals. The most depressing thing about that was that I knew perfectly well that the elaborate schedules I was assisting in drawing up would not be carried out. There was an alarming shortage of technical personnel in the Royal Air Force. As far as I know, since I left two years ago the position has not been alleviated in any respect. In addition to drawing up these schedules, it was also part of my duty to visit Bomber Command aerodromes and inspect the work for myself. The same complaint reached me everywhere I went. One would be shown a beautiful form with plenty of signatures on it, but, in point of fact, the work was either skimped or inadequately done, because there were not sufficient airmen in the technical trades to carry out the work. I do not suppose Transport Command is any better than Bomber Command was at that time so far as maintenance and inspection are concerned. I take it that Transport Command is suffering from the same shortage of man-power and that consequently there is the same skimping in inspections.
While planned maintenance is all right on paper, it is useless if it cannot be carried out. On the other hand, I might say that the position with B.O.A.C. certainly seems to be a good deal better. I think they have improved in a good many respects since the early days. B.O.A.C. sets itself a very high standard of maintenance just as the Royal Air Force does, but the fundamental difference between the two seems to be that B.O.A.C. is somehow or other able to carry it out, whereas the Royal Air Force, through shortage principally of fitters and riggers, is unable to maintain the very high standard which it sets for itself. Therefore, I think this is a point to which sufficient attention has not been paid. I think we should ensure that Transport Command does not attempt to carry out more flights than those for which it can do the maintenance.
The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) made a great deal of heavy weather about the different jobs for which Transport Command was responsible. I see nothing wrong in that. There is no reason why one Command should not be capable of carrying out different functions even if some of them are operational and some of them are not, provided it has adequate and sufficiently well trained personnel. Much complaint was made on a previous occasion when we discussed this matter because it was said that certain accidents—and I believe the case of the accident to the aircraft flying to the Crimea was quoted—occurred because the crews did not know the routes. I would point out that to fly an aeroplane is not the same thing as to drive a train; there are no roads, gradients and that sort of thing. It is, of course, important that you know the points of call and the terminal points, but as long as you have a crew which is thoroughly well versed and trained in aviation, there is no danger, apart perhaps from unexpected mountains and other obstacles; and if there is efficient equipment, there is no reason why the crew should not be able to fly a course of which they have not had very much previous experience. I understand that in the case of the accident in the flight to the Crimea Conference, the cause was partly a defect in the radio and partly a defect on the part of the navigator. That accident, therefore, covers both the

categories I have mentioned, that of defective equipment on the one hand, and that of defective judgment on the other. As I am confining myself to the first class of accident, all I would say is that in any inquiry which is set up, the most important factor to which attention should be drawn is the shortage of manpower for maintenance.

7.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): Let, me, in the first place, associate myself with what fell from the mover of the Adjournment about the sad loss which we have all suffered, and the very sad loss which the Air Ministry has suffered, in the death of our colleague, Commander Brabner. He had shown an extraordinarily quick grasp of the problems with which he had to deal in the Air Ministry, he had thrown himself with wonderful zest into his work there, he was naturally greatly admired for his splendid war record, and, as we all know, he had a great future before him. We feel his loss very deeply. May I add, too, as my hon. Friend made the reference for which I am grateful, that we lost a number of other devoted servants of the State who had helped to build up the Royal Air Force during the war. I will not say anything about the causes of the accident. My hon. Friend referred to the oil leak, but, as hon. Members who have done any flying know, that is not a thing which is by any means abnormal, and it certainly on this occasion seemed to inspire no alarm.

Mr. Bowles: I did not refer to the oil leak.

Captain Pluģģe: But I did.

Sir A. Sinclair: Another hon. Member did. It caused no alarm, and, whatever the cause, it is impossible to state what it was until the accident has been thoroughly investigated by the Court of Inquiry. From what I know of the case I think that even then there may be great difficulty in ascertaining the cause. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge), in his interesting speech, seemed to me to travel a little outside the purpose of the Motion in referring to flying boats and airfield's. What we are concerned with is the safety of Transport Command in using the aircraft it has at the present time. These interesting and important questions about the kind of air-


craft that should be used, whether flying boats or land aircraft, and whether we are pursuing a wise or unwise airfield policy, are matters for the future and, as regards civil air transport, are matters for the Minister for Civil Aviation.
I come to the causes which my hon. Friend referred to as being some of the principal causes of the accidents of which we have lately heard. He referred, in the first place, to the accident about three weeks ago in the Azores. Until the report of the inquiry has been thoroughly studied I am not prepared to give the House an opinion on the cause of that accident. Several Members raised the important question of the overruling of the pilot's judgment on whether it was wise to embark on a flight or not. All I would say about that is that the pilot was very experienced, with a considerable number of hours' flying, and that he was instructed that after he took off he should turn right. He was given that instruction on his briefing and was reminded of it just before he took off. In spite of that, for some reason or other, he turned to the left, with the disastrous result which my hon. Friend has described.

Mr. Bowles: I do not want to make any unfair accusations against anybody. I said that he went slightly to the left off his course, but I did not say he turned, because it would have been impossible to turn the machine at that speed. He probably drifted to the left. Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about the evidence of the briefing officer?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, but I have something to say about the pilot's right to decide whether he takes off or not. The first cause of accidents which my hon. Friend gave was interference with the pilot's judgment on whether it was safe to start upon a flight. The second cause, he said, was the use of bomber pilots, which led to a rather careless or, if you like, a daring view of standards of safety. I do not think that is true. My own experience of air crews and other men who are accustomed to face danger is that they are not foolhardy. Men who are accustomed to face risks and have had to take risks are not men who foolishly run into danger. I assure my hon. Friend that it is quite untrue to say that a great number of these crews regard it is unpleasant or contemptible work to go into Transport Command, or that the phrase "becoming

chauffeurs to civilians" represents their real attitude to their work. It is the kind of phrase which, as we all know, young men often use. I have no doubt that they have some similar phrase to describe their work in Bomber and Fighter Commands—some similar jocular phrase to describe it in ordinary conversation.
I think that most young pilots who have done an operational tour in some operational Command are keen and interested to take on Transport Command work. I have known personally an enormous number of young men who are keen, and I have never met anyone who took that view, except possibly a certain number who were longing to get into an operational Command and were posted to Transport Command before they had had a chance of fighting. I am sure that this is not true of bomber pilots or that they are resentful of carrying passengers. It would be a deplorable thing if it were true, because it is from Bomber Command that we must get a great part of our crews for Transport Command. It would not matter in the least whether we ran this great transport service under military command or under a civil corporation, there is only one place from which to get their crews, who must be men of the right age and experience, and that is from those who have been trained to go into Bomber and other operational Commands and who have done their operational tours.
My right hon. Friend said that there were a number of bad aircraft in Transport Command. I do not think there has been any time when that was less true than it is now. I know they are not all brand new aircraft of the latest type. Obivously, we have to take some of the older types in use, but we have been steadily improving the equipment of Transport Command, as the Under-Secretary was quoted as saying, and I can say with absolute assurance that at no time during the war has Transport Command been so well equipped with good aircraft as it is at the present time.

Captain Pluģģe: In view of what my right hon. Friend says now, why did he say previously that I went wide of the point in referring to flying boats? Why are Transport Command not using flying boats? Why have they been discontinued and hundreds of men discharged at Shorts' in Rochester? That is an important point


in regard to the equipment of Transport Command which bears on safety.

Sir A. Sinclair: I think that the House wishes to discuss the use by Transport Command of the equipment that it has at present. What the equipment of the Command should be in the future is a different matter. We could have an interesting discussion on that point, but supposing that, as the result of it, we decided that there should be flying boats and decided to give an order for them now, it would be a long time before we got them. I am, therefore, addressing myself to the efficiency of Transport Command and the efficient use of its present equipment. I say that it has never been better than it is now.
My hon. Friend who introduced the Debate questioned the training of the maintenance men. All I can tell him is that they are most carefully trained. They are trained in Technical Training Command and are remustered into more skilled trades as time goes on. Some who are to be employed on American aircraft are sent to America to undergo courses, and they give courses of instruction on their return. It is perfectly true, as was said in the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit), that we have had immense difficulties in finding the necessary numbers of highly skilled men owing to the Royal Air Force expanding with such astonishing rapidity since the beginning of the war.

Mr. A. Bevan: But the right hon. Gentleman took the men for the Army.

Sir A. Sinclair: That, of course, is a question of where the men are most required for the conduct of the war. We have to make the best use we can, and my submission to the House, and all I am responsible to the House for, is that we are making the best use of the bers of men which we are allowed to take into the Royal Air Force. That we are doing, and we are giving in men, in materials, in navigational aids and in all that is required to raise the standards of safety for Transport Command, an increasing priority to the transport service, which is taking an ever increasing part in the conduct of the air war.
The hon. Member also said that another cause of accidents was a tendency to

break up crews. In using the word "tendency," the hon. Member obviously intended to imply that we like breaking up crews and that there was some reason why Transport Command, or somebody else, frivolously or without sufficient cause, broke up crews. That really is not true. The opposite is the object of all Commands—Transport Command, Bomber Command and Coastal Command—who employ crews on a large scale, and the one thing which they hate having to do is to break up crews, but, of course, it frequently happens to be necessary. One member of a crew may be wounded or killed or go sick, and it frequently happens that crews must be broken up, but it is the last thing that any commander would deliberately agree to do and it is certainly the last thing that we want done.
Then the hon. Gentleman told us about an aircraft in which the second pilot was a lady—a blonde from South Africa. I am sure he is misinformed about that. There are, in fact, no women employed in Transport Command.

Mr. Bowles: I did not say she was employed. I thought I made it alsolutely clear that she was a girl friend of the pilot whom he had brought back from South Africa.

Sir A. Sinclair: That, of course, I find extremely difficult to believe, but, if my lion. Friend will send me particulars, I will make inquiries. I assure him that it would be absolutely contrary to the rules that a pilot should take a lady friend with him It would be absolutely contrary to the rules but if there is such a case—and I wish hon. Members would treat me with frankness in these cases—and the hon. Member will let me know, I will swiftly investigate. If he will send me particulars, an immediate investigation will be made.

Mr. Bowles: I will.

Sir A. Sinclair: As regards second pilots, they are employed in all four-engined aircraft and in all aircraft engaged in long flights, and it is quite untrue, I can assure the hon. Member, that Transport Command has any prejudice against the employment of second pilots.
Now I come to what I feel the House, and certainly I myself, feel is the most important of the alleged causes of accidents, or would be, if it were true, and


that is the suggestion that pilots are prevailed upon to take off on flights against their better judgment. The rules have always been that it is the pilots who decide, but subject to the overriding authority of the Station Commander to say that he thinks the pilot, if he took off, would be taking an unnecessary risk. That is the rule, but it is not easy to apply it in practice. You may have a very junior pilot who has a very strong feeling that he does not want to start, but who has a General or Admiral with him who tells him that it is of the highest operational importance to get from A to B and get there quickly, and that he is prepared to take the risk. In those circumstances, it is not easy for the pilot, and we have had some instances of that in the past, and we have, therefore, from time to time ruled that the pilot's judgment must be accepted.

Mr. Bevan: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that he has "from time to time ruled"?

Sir A. Sinclair: I mean that, when I have heard of the trouble, when it has been suggested to me that a case has arisen in which a pilot has been overruled, or in which it has been suggested that the Royal Air Force has been slow in responding to a request to get an important man from one place to another, I, with the full support of the Air Staff, have said that the pilot's judgment must prevail. A little time ago, it was mentioned to me—I think in Debate, but also privately by one or two Members of Parliament—that they had heard of cases in which the pilot had been overruled. Therefore, to make assurance doubly sure, I had this letter despatched from the Air Ministry:
The captain of any aircraft is responsible for the safety of his passengers but the captain of a transport or communication aircraft may on occasions find himself under pressure from a passenger who is a Very Important Personage or au officer of his own or another Service senior to himself in rank, to take off under conditions which in his own judgment are not suitable. In such circumstances, it is the duty of the captain to stand his ground, and, if necessary, to appeal for support to the Commanding Officer of the Transport or Communications Formation or Unit, or to the Senior Royal Air Force Officer on the Station or even to the Air Officer Commanding, and the Council wish it to be understood that in the event of such an appeal being made it is the duty of the senior officer to support it.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what he is saying to the House? It is plain that, first of all, a

potential passenger has to be sufficiently concerned and thinks he is sufficiently well informed enough to say "I do riot think this machine should take off." The House will realise that the passenger, if an important person, may say, "I do not think we ought to fly." The second point is that the pilot must himself be a sufficiently strong-minded person to say, "I do not think, in these circumstances, we ought to fly." In other words, he has to resist all kinds of circumstances before he can state his own point of view, and that seems to me to be a very bad situation, from all points of view.

Sir A. Sinclair: I think my hon. Friend has got it wrong. I think the House has understood that the position is that the pilot, who is captain of the aircraft, decides whether the aircraft takes off or not. If he is subjected to pressure, he has been told—every pilot has been told—that he will be supported by his senior officer in resisting that pressure. The only interference with the judgment of a pilot that would take place is when the Station Commander thinks that a pilot who is prepared to take off is taking a risk and refuses to give clearance to the aircraft.

Mr. Gallacher: Could it not be laid down that no passenger, no matter how important, has any right of any kind to make any suggestion or bring any pressure of any kind upon the pilot? It is inconceivable that, on board a ship in a fog, the most important mart who ever lived could go to the bridge to the captain and tell him that he was in a hurry and that the captain must speed up the ship, fog or no fog. Could not conditions be laid down, and a strict rule made, that no passenger of any kind has any right to make suggestions to, or interfere with, the captain of a plane?

Major Woolley: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether disciplinary action could be taken against officers who brought undue pressure to bear against pilots?

Sir A. Sinclair: It would depend what the pressure was, but, if the pressure was undue, it would be reported to the senior Air officer concerned. I think the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) does not realise the variety of circumstances that may arise in the course of the war. You may have a very junior pilot of Transport Command in a very out-of-the-


way place, and a senior officer coming to him genuinely believing that the success of operations, and perhaps the lives of the troops, depended on his reaching a particular place quickly. It is not an easy situation, and the hon. Member must realise that there are great difficulties in it, but I am sure that we have got the right answer now that all pilots have been authorised to stand their ground, knowing that if they do they will receive the support of their senior officers.

Mr. Bowles: Supposing it is the directions of the briefing officer to the pilot that has led to the inquiries? All these statements that have been made are from Transport Command. How will the right hon. Gentleman ever know what took place in the Azores in this case when the briefing officer told the young Czech pilot to take off when he did not want to?

Sir A. Sinclair: If the Czech pilot had said "I refuse to take off," he would have been supported by the station officer on that occasion. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), who does not seem to be in his place, suggested that I was unwilling to take responsibility for accidents. I think, if I may say so, that that is not a fair suggestion to make. I have always been at the service of the House and I have never shirked responsibility for any accidents, except only for one which was not the responsibility of the Royal Air Force at all. Certainly, I accept full responsibility, but I do not think it is necessary to indicate which Command or which unit or group is responsible for the accident. I am responsible to this House, and I would only say that I think that, unfortunately, the truth is not that Transport Command is debited with fewer accidents than occur under its responsibility, but the fact is that if is often debited with more. For example, two accidents have been mentioned in this connection, that in which Sir Trafford Leigh-Mallory so lamentably met his death and the other accident in which we lost our two colleagues in Italy, neither of which are in any degree the responsibility of Transport Command.
I listened, as indeed did the whole House, with immense zest to the story which the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) told and his

account of how he kept coming up after one shock after another and how he came back every time and eventually got to Prestwick. There, again, I say to him, and I would say to every Member of the House—I had hoped they had understood it without my saying it—I wish hon. Members would come to me with experiences of the kind at the time and I would get on to the matter right away. I will make inquiries now, but I gather my inquiries will be rather belated; I will make inquiries into the experiences of my hon. Friend. I wish he had told me about them at the time. I cannot offer an explanation because this is the first I have heard of his much-interrupted journey.
The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) mentioned the transport aircraft in South Eastern Asia. I happen to have made some inquiries about that, and I asked the retiring Deputy Air Commander-in-Chief, who came back home the other day, and who has now gone to command the Royal Air Force in the Mediterranean and Middle East—I refer to Air Marshal Garrod—and he told me that he thought they were entirely satisfactory for their purpose. One hon. Member referred to what he called the admission of the Under-Secretary of State the other day and the admission which I have made, that in the past priorities in material and personnel were unsatisfacfactory to Transport Command. It that is an admission, I certainly repeat it. I do not think it is an admission. I do not stand in a white sheet about it at all. At the time when we were fighting for our lives and very short of every form of combat aircraft it was absolutely indispensable for the success of our operations and for the lives of our pilots and crews engaged in heavy fighting with the enemy, that they should receive priority in the supplies of equipment. This equipment has not been easy to come by. We have had an enormous expansion in the production of every sort and kind of equipment but rigid priorities and allocations have had to be made in order to obtain it at all. It was right, in my judgment, that we should give the priorities to the Commands who had direct impact with the enemy. Now we are able to do and are doing much more for Transport Command in many fields, by the provision of aircraft, of crews, of maintenance, and improvements of scientific aids to navigation. We are able to do very much more


which is reflected in the flying results of the Command. That covers too what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras told the House about planned maintenance. The weather service is, I am assured, in every way good—and I have made more than one inquiry into this—having regard to the great difficulties we have experienced in the past owing to wartime conditions in the Mediterranean and in France. One of the great difficulties about our weather service is the signals communication and the flying control organisation. All that has been gradually improved over a series of months. The big improvements which have long been planned and require a great deal of organisation are now coming into effect in flying control in the Mediterranean area.
The hon. Member who introduced the Debate said that when accidents occurred, the Air Ministry was the wrong body to inquire into them. I suggest to the House that that is not the right view. Really I do not think that there is any Member of the House who has as much responsibility and therefore as much interest and keenness as I have in reducing the accident rate. The Royal Air Force is determined to reduce, and is at this time reducing, the rate of accidents in Transport Command, and, I am glad to say, generally throughout all the Commands of the Royal Air Force. Nobody is as sensitive as the Air Ministry to the need to reduce these accidents, and no one has the same intimate knowledge of all the conditions as the Commands. We have taken a great many steps to reduce the rate of casualties. I have mentioned some that we have taken, and we are continuing to push forward at the present time. I would only add from the Air Ministry's standpoint the appointment of which the House was informed about 18 months ago of the Director of Accidents Prevention. His business is the study and analysis of accidents that occur, drawing the lessons from them and promulgating them to all Commands of the Royal Air Force. I would ask the House to consider the results of all this work which has been done.

Mr. Bowles: Surely it would be impossible for the Air Ministry to see what I have been alleging as the real and main trouble, and that is, that this Transport Command Air Force and its passenger

service are dominated by too much military outlook.

Sir A. Sinclair: With great respect, I do not agree. The outlook of Transport Command is not specifically military or civilian. Its reputation depends on the safety with which its operations are conducted. Safety is the objective at which it is aiming and if there is a great expansion of civil air services after the war, it is on Transport Command and on the officers who are now running Transport Command, and on its own flying control and flying organisations, and on its maintenance men and air crews, that the civil bodies will depend for their expansion. In judging results, I would reject entirely the comparison suggested by an hon. Friend of comparing results with civil air lines in America. You might as well compare sculling down the Thames with navigating a fishing boat in a rough sea. In America you have your whole civil organisation, with great beams of radio in lanes all across the country, and there is no comparison whatever with the conditions under which our crews are operating on these long routes to the Azores, through the Mediterranean and on to India.

Captain Pluģģe: One has to make some comparison with figures that are available. I quoted the American lines' record as a datum line. Can my right hon. Friend give the comparative figures between the American Transport Command and our Transport Command? Do they work out in the same proportion? He cannot challenge my figures.

Sir A. Sinclair: I cannot give the figures. I do not know the figures of the American Transport Command.

Mr. Driberģ: Might I put a comparison much nearer home to the right hon. Gentleman? May I ask him if it is not the case that the accident rate is startlingly higher among aircraft carrying V.I.P.s and ordinary passengers than among the aircraft which have brought back hundreds of thousands of wounded men from France; and does not that suggest that the importance, or the supposed urgency, of these missions is allowed to push the pilots beyond the limits of safety too often?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, I do not think that is true. If it is true, if it has been true in the past, then this letter which I have read not only expresses my own views and


the views of the Air Ministry on the problem which my hon. Friend has raised but will certainly check any such tendency in the future.
Now I will ask the House to consider the enormous increase and the enormous scale of the activities of Transport Command, and it is against that background that the number of accidents must be seen if they are to be viewed in perspective. The number of aircraft employed in Transport Command now runs into many hundreds and, if you include communications aircraft in all the different Commands, they run into thousands. The number of passengers carried doubled in the last half of last year. As the Under-Secretary of State observed in the last Debate which took place, if you have more flying, you will have more accidents. You need not have more in proportion and, as I shall show the House, we are not having them, we are having fewer in proportion. If, however, you have more than double the number of aircraft flying and the number of passengers carried, you are bound to have more accidents.

Captain Pluģģe: That cannot possibly be accepted; I must protest. The figures I gave were in passenger-miles and therefore they are not affected by the number of aircraft flying or the expanse of the command. On the contrary, the more passenger-miles flown, the less tendency towards accident per passenger-mile there would be.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not referring to my hon. and gallant Friend's figures, I am referring to the fact that if you have a certain number of aircraft flying and you double that number, you are bound to have more accidents, though you need not have double the number of accidents. As I have said, we are not having double the number of accidents, we are reducing the rate at which they occur.

Mr. Gallacher: You might have double the number of planes flying but have double the experience and better planes and therefore have less accidents. There have been plane crashes where there has been no real reason why there should hove been a plane crash or why the passengers should have lost their lives. That is the thing to take up.

Sir A. Sinclair: I think that the hon. Member is speaking academically and I

am speaking of practical facts. If, in fact, very suddenly in the course of a few months you double the number of aircraft, if yod double the number of crews employed on transport work, you are bound to have more accidents. However, you are not bound to have a higher rate. We have a lower accident rate than we had when we had fewer aircraft flying and fewer crews employed. But, of course, flying is a dangerous business especially under war-time conditions, with wireless silence and imperfect navigational aids and, so long as these conditions last, you will not be able altogether to avoid accidents.
Then there is the human factor, and the price for any failure in the human factor in flying is higher than in the case of road traffic, though, as we know, even in the much simpler case of road traffic there are serious accidents and people lose their lives. In the case of flying, the human error sometimes enters. One reason for keeping the examination of the causes of these accidents in the hands of the people who bear the main responsibility for safety, in the hands of the Commands, to conduct these inquiries in secrecy is that it results in shrewd criticism by comparatively junior officers, sometimes of senior officers, sometimes of different aspects of the organisation, sometimes of a technical breakdown. These courts of inquiry are quite invaluable, but their value rests very largely on the fact that their proceedings and their findings are confidential.
One or two hon. Members have said that crashes are common in Transport Command. The fact is that they are not. There is this huge number of aircraft flying, a very large proportion of them carrying important passengers, many people whose names are household words. Nobody flies to-day unless they have some important work to do in connection with the war, consequently a very high proportion of them are people whose names are famous. If the House wishes to know the number of crashes in Transport Command trunk routes and feeder lines—and these feeder lines include such lines as those to which the Under-Secretary of State referred when we were last discussing this subject; the feeder line to Yugoslavia, for instance, where there was an accident a few months ago on a frightfully bad airfield—the number of accidents involving death or serious injury to pas-


sengers on the Transport Command trunk and feeder lines last month was three; the month before it was one; in January it was none. The facts are that we have worked hard to reduce this accident rate in Transport Command and we have worked not unsuccessfully. In December of last year and in January of this year the accident rate was less than half of what it was in January of last year. We have worked hard and successfully. We are continuing to work hard to reduce this accident rate. I claim that I have the greatest interest, and the Command and the Air Ministry have the greatest interest in the reduction of this accident rate. We are determined to reduce it still further and I ask, therefore, for the confidence of the House.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) deserves, I think, the thanks of the House for having initiated a Debate which has enabled many hon. Members to give expression to the deep anxiety which the whole House feels, and which I think the whole country feels, at the repetition of accidents which cost us valuable lives and which have in every case no assignable cause. Speaking for myself, I am bound to say that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing whatever to allay an anxiety which is felt in all parts of the House over these matters. No one knowing the right hon. Gentleman would for a single moment think that he was not himself deeply moved by these matters, and I suppose that it was his enthusiasm in defence of his Department that lent that character to his speech which many of us would describe as almost complacent. I have no doubt at all, I repeat, that he had no intention of being complacent, but I assure him that the character of his defence seemed complacent to many of us, and unduly so.
My hon. Friend suggested five possible auses of these repeated accidents. The Sight hon. Gentleman dealt with all of them and found nothing in any of them. He did not believe that there was anything in the point about the absence of co-pilots. He did not believe there was a reluctance on the part of Transport Command to have co-pilots. He did not believe there were any appreciable defects in the machines. He did not believe the crews had insufficient conversion training.

He did not believe that there was any real lack of skilled pilots. Apparently none of the reasons which my hon. Friend advanced to explain these matters are reasons which he thought deserved an inquiry—

Sir A. Sinclair: I think the hon. Member is not quite fair to me. I did not deal with some of the points he has mentioned, for instance, the number of skilled pilots. We are doing everything we can to increase the number of skilled pilots, but when we are expanding as rapidly as we are that is a problem. We are tackling it as hard as we can. I am far from saying that that is not an important point, or that the other points which the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) raised were not important.

Mr. Silverman: It is precisely that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which so alarmed so many of us. The right hon. Gentleman said: "Of course, we are always searching for more skilled pilots," but when he was challenged, in an intervention, about the drafting of skilled men from the R.A.F. into other branches of the Armed Forces, what did he say? He said that he had no complaint to make about it, that he was not worried about it, that there was no indication that any representation had been made by the Air Ministry against transferring skilled people from the R.A.F. into other branches of the Armed Forces while there was a lack of skilled pilots. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton made a point about the military mindedness of people who have not had sufficient skilled conversion training. In this and practically all other matters the right hon. Gentleman found nothing disquieting. He gave no explanation of what is causing him so much uneasiness, and the rest of us so much alarm.
I do not want to prolong the Debate or deal with points which have already been dealt with, but my hon. Friend did make two requests. First, he asked that there should be a Select Committee of this House set up to inquire into the causes of these accidents. That suggestion was supported, unless I am gravely mistaken, by every speaker in the Debate, from all sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing his Department a service, as well as satisfying the united demand of the House, if he would concede that request. But no, he said nothing about it at all, and one must


presume from his silence that he does not propose to set up such a Select Committee.

Mr. Cocks: Silence implies assent.

Mr. Silverman: In this case I am afraid that silence means refusal. Had the right hon. Gentleman any intention of consenting I think he would have made a shorter speech, and made that announcement at the beginning of it. I do not know what my hon. Friend intends to do, but if it Were my Motion I would divide the House and let it decide whether the Minister is right or wrong in refusing such an inquiry. My hon. Friend also said—I would like the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because he did deal with this matter—that if there were inquiries into accidents as and when they occur they ought not to be inquiries by the Air Ministry. I think that opinion is widely shared in this House. The right hon. Gentleman himself was careful to say: "I am responsible to the House for all these accidents," and so indeed he is, but if he goes on to say: "I am responsible to the House for the accidents and I am going myself to inquire into the causes of the accidents, so I can decide for myself what exactly my responsibility was," then he makes nonsense of the inquiry. He makes himself judge in his own court, and when he adds to that, as a virtue, that the inquiry by the Air Ministry is confidential then he makes matters a hundred times worse.
How can we allay public anxiety—and there is much anxiety about this matter—by having a series of secret inquiries so that nobody knows what evidence is taken, what evidence was available, or how the published conclusion of the inquiry is related to the evidence which was heard? Take the point which my lion. Friend made about the Azores accident, and none of us know whether it is true or not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us, perhaps to-morrow. Did it indeed happen that the briefing officer told the pilot: "You must go off to-night, and if you refuse to go off to-night you must give your reasons for refusing to go in writing"? It is very important when estimating or investigating the cause of that particular accident to know whether it happened or not. How is the right

hon. Gentleman ever going to know whether it happened or not if it is not on the record, if somebody said that it was irrelevant on the absurd ground that what matters is what caused the accident at the moment it occurred, and not what caused the aeroplane to be in the air at all at that moment? With a public inquiry the evidence would be available to us all. It would not be purely an ex parte affair. Not merely would the Air Ministry know all the facts, but the House and the country would know all the facts, and would not that be a better thing, when the whole country has been so alarmed at the repetition of these disasters? I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to go very much further than he has done to satisfy the anxiety expressed in this Debate, which has already lasted over two hours. He has refused a Select Committee to inquire into all the accidents, he has refused an independent inquiry into any of them. He has told us that everything is all right, that there is nothing to worry about, that accidents just happen because the human factor fails, and we have to take it from him because he has had—

Sir A. Sinclair: That is a travesty of what I said. I said I was deeply concerned about these accidents, and that I was determined to do everything possible, with the full support of all Commands and staff.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I began my few remarks by saying that I wanted to concede at once that he was deeply moved by these matters, and would do anything in his power to prevent them. We all appreciate that, but what I am saying is that he would be serving his desire, and the desire of the House, very much better if he did not obstinately refuse every suggestion for an inquiry into the causes of these accidents, with a view to finding some remedy. He wants to keep it all to himself, he wants an ex parte inquiry, he wants no one else to know what the evidence is, and he wants us to accept the results he communicates to us, ex cathedra, in that way. I do not believe for one moment that this House will be satisfied with that kind of attitude to these matters.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: It seems to me we have now reached a very strange situation. I do not know whether the


House realises that this is only the third or fourth occasion in 20 or 25 years on which Mr. Speaker has allowed the Adjournment of the House to be moved in these circumstances. It has always been very difficult to persuade Mr. Speaker to allow the Adjournment to be moved in order to call attention to a matter in this way. On this occasion he has done so, and I am a little bit uneasy about the decision, because although Mr. Speaker evidently thought the matter to be one of immediate urgency and public importance, that view is apparently not shared by a very large number of hon. Members; they are not present at this moment, although they were earlier, and I think it is rather a serious thing.
This subject has been raised at Question Time over the last three or four weeks, and on each occasion the Prime Minister, with the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, has resisted any inquiry, except the inquiry conducted by the Department, into the accidents in Transport Command. I would not have intervened were it not for the fact that a large number of civil servants have spoken to me in the last fortnight on the matter, and they are very worried indeed. There is a conference about to take place at San Francisco, and in addition a number of preliminary conferences will take place. I am bound to tell my right hon. Friend that high-ranking civil servants are by no means pleased with the idea that they' are going to be transported to those conferences by Transport Command. On the contrary, they are very anxious.
I am not satisfied at all by the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given. What he has said is that he is very concerned about making Transport Command efficient. I am quite sure he is, but sincerity has never yet been a test of efficiency. No one suggests that Transport Command itself is not anxious to try to obtain the highest marks for itself, but its own eagerness is by no means a substitute for objective investigation, and that objective investigation we are being denied. I find myself worried not only by Transport Command and the Air Ministry but by the Army and the Admiralty. There are too many functions essentially civilian in character which are attached to the uniformed Departments. The Army, the Air Force and the Ad-

miralty have been allowed to expand in the course of the war and to absorb to themselves, sometimes quite justifiably—on each occasion the thing can be justified—a large number of activities and functions which are essentially civilian in character. My experience, and I think the experience of every hon. Member, goes to show that when you put a man in uniform you reduce his intelligence by practically 50 per cent.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Rubbish.

Mr. Bevan: Of course, it is true.

Sir M. Sueter: rose—

Mr. Bevan: I will not give way, because there is no question here of a personal explanation. I have seen the hon. and gallant Gentleman in civilian clothes during the last 15 years in this House, and consequently I must assume from his indignation that he would have been much more efficient if he had worn uniform. The fact is, and every hon. Member knows it, that we have to pay a certain price for the fact that people are put in uniforms. What is the gravamen of my hon. Friend's case? It is that there is attached to the Air Ministry, to the Army and the Admiralty, a function which is normally a civilian function. It is to transport civilian passengers from one place to another. That function, as far as we can see, is being discharged in the same spirit as the normal military functions of the Air Ministry are discharged. We do not know—and this is the thing that drives the iron into my soul—how many accidents are occurring in the Royal Air Force. They are operational accidents, they occur in the course of the conduct of the war; they do not appear at all, there are no investigations and no reports. Aircraft crash and men are killed, and we do not know anything about them. We do not see the registration of inefficiency or carelessness at all until they express themselves in Transport Command. When they come into Transport Command civilians are concerned, and then it is revealed only when they are persons of some importance involved. Obviously, here is a matter in which the House is directly involved. We are setting up a Ministry of Civil Aviation, I am bound to say I am a little bit frightened about that, because unless we establish a better reputation for


civil aviation than we have so far gained under Transport Command, it is going to have a very serious bearing on the future of civil aviation conducted by Great Britain after the war.
I suggest that a case has been made for an investigation into Transport Command by a Select Committee, not merely for the sake of finding victims, but for the sake of finding out some of the reasons responsible for accidents, which might help us later on in the organisation of civilian transport in this country. Why cannot we have that investigation? The right hon. Gentleman says: "We will make all the inquiries we can into this matter"; but my hon. Friends and I am not satisfied. The Department makes an inquiry into the Department's behaviour and finds that the Department is with' out blame. That is normally what happens. A Department never puts in a report to the House in which it states it is blameworthy. It always presents a report in which it says it is without blame, that certain things are responsible, but generally speaking, the Department itself is without responsibility.
I suggest frankly that we have not had from the right hon. Gentleman a reply which justifies us in abandoning the matter, and, therefore, I hope my hon. Friend will divide the House. We cannot accept responsibility for any further deaths, we cannot absolve the Minister from what has been happening. Therefore, in the circumstances, I think all we can do is to register what we feel about these events. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will support us on this occasion, because this is not moved in any party spirit; it is not a question of the Labour Party versus the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party. We are anxious to try to find out how it is possible for the House of Commons to bring about a public investigation into a series of accidents which have caused grave disquiet in the House and which might, if

they continued, produce a sort of phobia towards the future of civil aviation in Great Britain. I hope we shall have support in the Division Lobby, so that later we can have an investigation by a Committee not for the purpose of victimising anybody but to elicit the facts.

8.39 p.m.

Sir M. Sueter: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has insulted all men who have worn uniform. I ask him to withdraw his statement. When I was his age I was in unifonn. There is only one question I want to ask the Secretary of State for Air. Do the pilots go through a medical examination every now and again to see whether they are quite fit? When I was in the Royal Naval Air Service I was very particular that every now and then our pilots should have a medical examination to see that they were quite all right.

Sir A. Sinclair: I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman telling him exactly what the arrangements are.

Mr. Bowles: I am not satisfied with the the Minister's reply, and I would like to know whether in those circumstances hon. Members are to vote "Aye" or "No" on the Question before the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The Question is, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. Bowles: I am asking that the House shall adjourn because the Minister's reply was so unsatisfactory.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The trouble is that the hon. Member first moved the Adjournment, and then objected to it. If he is not satisfied with the position, he should vote "Aye."

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 85.

Division No. 12]
AYES.
[8.45 p.m.


Barnes, A. J.
Kirby, B. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Ballenger, F. J.
Lawson, H. M. (Skipton)
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Legan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
McGovern, J.



Cocks, F. S.
Mack, J. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Mr. Bowles and


Gallacher, W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. (Roshdale)
Mr. Moelwyn Hughes.


Granville, E. L.
Murray, J. D. (Spennymore)





NOES.


Beachman, N. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ross Taylor, W.


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Holdsworth, Sir H.
Sandys, Rt. Han. E. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Sir A. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Shuts, Col. Sir J. J.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Isaaos, G. A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gary, R. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Joynson-Hicks, U.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.
Studholme, Major H. G.


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T.R.A.M. (N'f'lk, N.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Suirdale, Colonel Viscount


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lipson, D. L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Critchley, A.
Ltoyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Thornaycroft, H. (Clayton)


Duckworth, W. R. (Most Side)
Maolay, Hon, John S. (Montrose)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Magnay, T.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Wander, Sir G. le M.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blayden)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Etherton, Ralph
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Evans, Col. Sir A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mathers, G.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Foot, D. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Woottch-Davies, J. H.


Furness, S. N.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bedmin)


Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
York, Major C.


Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Major A. S. L. (Partick)


Guest, Lt.-Col. H. (Drake)
Petherick, M.



Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Hammersley, S. S.
Prior, Comdr. R. M.
Mr. Pym and


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Procter, Major H. A.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.


Harvey, T. E.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)



Question put, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and Motion made, and postponed.

Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

BATTLE-TRAINING ACCIDENT (SOLDIER'S INJURY)

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Edģar Granville: I desire to raise a question affecting one of my constituents. I have given to the Secretary of State for War due notice of my intention to do so. After our long discussion on air accidents, I intend to speak of an accident which concerns the War Office and which befell Private Rumsby, an 18½year-old soldier who was undergoing training in a battle course and who is a constituent of mine. I have done my best to obtain full and authoritative facts. The account I shall give has been compiled from information given by men who were actually at the training school, or supplied by the father of the young soldier concerned.
The story begins on 17th November, when a number of young men were undergoing realistic battle training. In the course of the training 10 of them ran into a hut; they were supposed to be the British forces in an engagement with the enemy. They sat on various seats in the hut. The constituent on whose behalf I am speaking was on a seat near the door. One man

was heard to shout: "Here come the ferries," and then a sergeant, who I imagine was one of the instructors, threw a bomb, or some kind of explosive, into the hut. It rolled against the feet of this young soldier. The explosion seriously damaged the end of the hut and threw Pte. Rumsby on to the concrete, where he struck his head and was knocked out. That happened at 10.30 in the morning. He was carried to a medical hut nearby, where he lay unconscious until 4.30 in the afternoon, when he was taken to Cromer hospital, three miles away.
Not unnaturally, the father of this Suffolk soldier first asked why they had left the young man unconscious all that time before taking him to a hospital which was only three miles away, but from 17th November to the present day Mr. Rumsby, the father of the young man, has heard nothing from the military authorities about how the accident actually occurred. At 7.15 on the day in question, the father received a telegram stating that his son was seriously ill in Cromer Hospital. The father at once telephoned to the hospital and spoke to one of the nursing sisters. He gathered the impression that the hospital authorities did not want him to visit his son then. Next day, 18th November, the father visited his son in this hospital, but was unable to get details from any of the hospital staff. He took the course of asking other patients in the ward. They told him that his son had


been brought there at 5 o'clock on the previous day on a stretcher and that his son wore overalls, tin hat and gas mask and that his boots were very muddy. The father was told that since that time his son had used neither bedpan nor bottle. The father wrote at once to the War Office and to his son's commanding officer at Sheringham. He received an answer one month later, saying that owing to extreme pressure of work they had been unable to give him an earlier reply.
This young man was in that hospital, in a state, I imagine, of shock and complete loss of memory, and suffering from delayed concussion. At the beginning of the fourth week, one of the sisters asked him to sign a paper. He said he could not do so as he could not see properly. The sister told him that it was about his accident at Sheringham, at which he seemed very surprised and told the sister that he could not remember an accident happening to him, although he was obviously still suffering from its effects. There was complete loss of memory about the accident. He was told to get ready to leave next morning at 8 o'clock with a sergeant and another private. Up to this time he had only been allowed to get up between 3 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon and to walk about the hospital ward, but the next morning, in bitter winter weather, he was allowed to carry his kit to the roadside and board a bus for Cromer station. The three men arrived at 5 o'clock in the evening in Bedford, to which they were apparently to be transferred, and they had to carry their kit for two miles from Bedford Station to the convalescent hospital.
Next morning, these three men saw the medical officer. Private Rumsby told the medical officer that he had an acute pain in his head and that his eyes were hurting. The officer told the three men that if they were entitled to leave they could make an application for it. Private Rumsby made an application. He was told to parade the next morning, on 1st January, to get his pass and his money. He did so, when he was told to wait for his warrant pass, which was given to him, I understand, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. He left Bedford to go on his leave at 5 o'clock on 1st January, so this man had spent practically the whole of one day's leave waiting in a camp to get his

pass and leave money. I want the Minister to envisage the climatic conditions in this country on 1st January, heavy snow and frost, and one of the coldest days we had for a large number of years. This young soldier left Bedford at 5 o'clock that day. Unfortunately, as a result of the bomb accident or whatever it turns out to be—I hope to hear from the Minister what it was—he remembers nothing at all of what happened that day and is unable to give us any information about it. All we know is that the father discovered him at 5.30 next morning lying in a ditch almost frozen to death, four miles from home, still suffering from complete loss of memory and unconscious. I have taken considerable trouble to talk to a railwayman on the station concerned. This railwayman saw the boy leave the station and spoke to him, but he never answered, and it was quite obvious that he was suffering from complete loss of memory and had not the faintest idea how to get home four or five miles away, or even where he was going. It must have been after 11 o'clock at night, on one of the worst winter days within memory, when he began to try to walk home. He was discovered lying in the snow in a ditch, absolutely stiff with cold, the father had not even been informed that the boy had been transferred from Cromer to Bedford, and he discovered the warrant in his pocket when he undressed him and put him to bed. Not only was this young man sent home alone in these tragic circumstances, but his parents were not even given the necessary information that he was coming home on leave.
He was put to bed, and there he was for five days. The father inquired at the nearest hospital at Eye, and was told that he could bring the boy there, but as he was in bed at home he thought it better to see one of the local doctors. The doctor was completely shocked at the boy's condition, and said that he ought not to be moved, and in due time the doctor wrote to the Bedford Convalescent Home and made his complaint about the boy being sent in that condition. On 18th January the parents received a telegram asking them to send their son back to Bedford Hospital immediately, just like that.
On 13th February I asked the Secretary of State for War a Question about this in the House of Commons, and the right hon. Gentleman, after saying that inquiries


were being made, ventured to say as regards the medical condition of this soldier that his information did not agree with my own, and that on the last occasion they had been told that the mother had said the boy was out shooting rabbits. When I pressed the right hon. Gentleman to repeat this he said attempts had been made by an officer to see the mother, and on each occasion it was said the boy was out shooting rabbits. I made the fullest inquiry not only of the boy's father but elsewhere, and my information was that the young man had never had a sporting gun in his hand in his life. I imagine that what had happened was that when the military officer called, he was probably told by the boy's mother that he had gone out for a walk rabbiting. There is a very big difference between going out shooting rabbits and going out rabbiting. In the boy's condition it was a very good thing that he should go out and get some fresh air and exercise.
This case has created a great deal of resentment in a fairly large area, and I am afraid that the Minister does give the impression that in dealing with these matters in this perfunctory way he is dealing with mere numbers and not with human beings. This was a young man of eighteen and a half. Such men are not used to being treated in this way. They are citizen soldiers and should be treated as such. I want to make a complaint here about the visiting officers. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that instead of senior officers using petrol to keep calling on this young man at his home a military ambulance should be sent for him, but this was not done, and I believe that finally he had to make his own way oback to the hospital escorted by his father. All kinds of notes were left on the boy's parents. One read:
You win report immediately to the officer commanding 101 military convalescent depot.
This was signed by Major somebody or other. On another occasion, there was an altercation between the young man's mother and a visiting officer who, by inference, accused her of hiding the boy from the military. I want to say emphatically that you may conscript soldiers but you cannot send military officers to issue orders to their parents, and I take this opportunity of protesting vigorously against this practice.
The young man was finally discharged, but before that he did go back to the con-

valescent home. Why was it the War Office did not send a welfare officer? Why was it that the military authorities responsible did not send an ambulance to fetch the young man? They could send two or three officers to make these calls and have these differences with the boys' parents in what was a very difficult, unfortunate, almost a tragic, case. I understand that a court of inquiry was set up to find out how this young man received such serious injury, and I would like to ask if that court has been held, what were the findings, and whether Mills bombs were issued either to the N.C.O.s. taking part in this battle training or to the young men who received the training two days before the accident.
I would also like to know whether anyone was to blame. Of course I would also like to know why he was sent on leave alone on 1st January, on the worst day for many years, in bitter cold, and why he was allowed to leave at five o'clock when they knew he was going somewhere he could not possibly reach that same night, when they must also have known that he was suffering from loss of memory. I would also like to ask why the staff at the hospital were not told in the first case the cause of the boy's injury. When the father went there the next day it was only with the greatest difficulty that he could obain from other soldiers in the ward any information as to what had happened. Nurses, sisters and others of the staff gave the impression that they were trying to cover something up. Were they told the cause of his accident and why he was put into hospital? I should very much like to know also whether as he is discharged, or is to be discharged, he will receive a pension because of the injury he received. That is all-important.

Sir Leslie Boyce: Is the boy going to be discharged on medical grounds?

Mr. Granville: That is what I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that the boy has been a good soldier and that his record is good and so on. That is the reason why, if he is to be discharged, I want to know whether he will receive a pension. Then again it may be a small point, but it is something of great importance to his parents. Is the father to be compensated for the expenditure which he incurred in visiting the hospital on several occasions and taking


the boy back to the Bedford Convalescent Home?
Finally, I think the parents are entitled to an apology for the way in which they have been treated by these various military officers. I am satisfied about that, I have investigated it very carefully. I was hoping that the Secretary of State for War would be here in view of the way in which he dealt with this matter at Question Time, the lone of his voice, his almost joking manner and his cynicism. These cases are happening all too often. I had a case early in the war, when a young man was killed as a result of his misadventure. We have had many of these cases brought up on the Adjournment and it is very rarely that the Secretary of State comes to deal with them. I know the Financial Secretary will do so with his usual courtesy and efficiency, but I think that if the Secretary of State gives these answers he should come here and "take the rap" on the Adjournment. We have had so many of these cases that in my view it is time we had a new Secretary of State for War.

9.12 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I can assure my hon. Friend that the fact of the Secretary of State for War not being here should not be taken as evidence of his indifference to the raising on the Floor of the House of such matters as my hon. Friend has raised to-night. I am afraid it has been a long established tradition in our Parliamentary system that one of the privileges of an Under-Secretary is, I do not say to "take the rap"—he certainly gets a few—but to speak on behalf of the Department with which he is associated. As regards this particular case, I should like at the outset to express my personal sympathy with Private Rumsby and his family in the unfortunate accident which he suffered. I do not wish in any way to minimise its seriousness, but I hope to show that the facts are, in certain important respects, different from those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville). He informed the House that this accident occurred during an exercise in which Private Rumsby took part on 17th November of last year. In the course of the exercise fireworks used for training purposes, and known as thunder-flashes, were thrown to represent

bombs. No Mills bombs were used. A thunder-flash is composed of a cardboard box with a small amount of explosive in it, and a fuse. The fuse is lit at the appropriate moment and the cardboard box is thrown to represent a bomb.

Mr. Granville: Is my hon. and learned Friend telling us the finding of the Court of Inquiry? Does the court say that no Mills bombs were used?

Mr. Henderson: I am not in a position to quote from the report of the Court of Inquiry, because that is a privileged document, but I have had reports apart from that of the Court of Inquiry, and I am informed that, in fact, during this particular exercise thunder-flashes were being used, and a thunder-flash was thrown against the shelter in which the trainees were taking cover. This shelter had a corrugated iron roof. According to my information, none of the thunder-flashes was thrown into the hut, but one exploded on the roof directly above where Private Rumsby was sitting, and against which his head may have been resting. He was later found—

It being a Quarter past Nine o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

Mr. Henderson: He was found in a very dazed condition after the explosion, and was immediately taken to the unit's medical inspection room, where he received first-aid. My hon. Friend has been informed that Private Rumsby was not admitted to hospital until about six hours after the explosion, I think he said at 4.30. My information is that he was in hospital by 1 o'clock, which is 2½ hours after the explosion, and he was found to be suffering from concussion. He received every care, and on 26th December was passed fit to be transferred to a military convalescent depot, to which he was sent on 28th December.

Mr. Granville: Could a thunder-flash produce concussion?

Mr. Henderson: If I may draw on my personal experience, I have seen thunder-flashes used in exercises, and I should not like to have one near my head. If the man's head was resting, as it may well have been, against a corrugated iron roof,


an explosion on the other side might well cause this concussion. I am advised that on arrival at the military convalescent depot at Bedford, Private Rumsby was medically examined, and was considered by the doctor to be fit to go on leave. I am also medically advised that there is always a possibility of a man who has suffered a head injury being subject to headaches, or attacks of dizziness, afterwards.

Mr. Granville: He was not sent on leave until four weeks later.

Mr. Henderson: Was it not six weeks later?

Mr. Granville: My information is 1st January.

Mr. Henderson: The accident was on 17th November so that is six weeks later.

Mr. Granville: That may be.

Mr. Henderson: I am advised that there is always a possibility that a man who has suffered a head injury may have headaches or attacks of dizziness, up to two, three, four, five or six weeks after the accident, but it would be rather drastic to forbid normal activities, such as leave, simply on the chance of such an occurrence. In any event it was considered by the doctors that this soldier was fit to travel, and he was allowed to go. As he was considered fit to travel his parents were not informed that he was proceeding home on leave. It is not the practice in any of the Services to inform parents when, in the normal course of events, a soldier is proceeding home on leave. Rightly or wrongly, the doctor considered he was fit to travel, and no information was sent to the parents.

Sir Georģe Jones: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that a doctor considered this man fit to travel, although he was liable to attacks of dizziness?

Mr. Henderson: If I may digress into another sphere, I think that my hon. and learned Friend, like myself, knows of many cases where a person might be fit to resume his occupation, though liable to have recurrent attacks of headaches or anything else. I do not think there is anything inconsistent in that attitude. My hon. Friend can speak for himself.

Mr. Granville: In face of the fact that when this young man was asked to sign a form relating to his accident, and that when he discussed the matter with his own father and mother when they visited him he could not remember the accident and could not remember that he had been in hospital, and the whole impression was that he was suffering from complete loss of memory, did the medical officer consider that he was fit to travel?

Mr. Henderson: As regards the signing of the document, I have no information; and I can only undertake to inquire whether or not he was asked to sign a particular document. Rightly or wrongly, the doctor who examined him at the hospital on 30th November considered him fit to travel. I am not disputing my hon. Friend's account of the condition in which the soldier arrived home. I can only state the facts as they were known to the authorities. The doctors did not see the young roan when he arrived home, and I can only accept my hon. Friend's statement as to the condition he was in. On 1st January, six weeks after the accident, he was allowed to go home. My hon. Friend has referred to his kit. I am informed that he was carrying his kit in the normal way. It was very light, probably not weighing more than five or six pounds, and containing only the necessaries for his leave. According to his own statement, he left his steel helmet and his respirator at the hospital, which would account for the lightness of his kit. I want to be quite frank. It is extremely unfortunate. This young soldier may well have developed—

Mr. Granville: He was made cross-eyed for one thing.

Mr. Henderson: —a temporary loss of memory, and be found in the condition in which his father did find him. I would emphasise that this was six weeks after the accident. I have informed the House that he was sent home on leave on 1st January.

Mr. Granville: And was left to walk home two miles.

Mr. Henderson: I hope my hon. Friend will let me develop my case. This young man was due to return to the convalescent hospital on 10th January. A letter arrived from his father saying that he was not fit to return. He was placed


on the "Sick at home list," and steps were taken to see that he was visited by a military doctor. My reply to the suggestion that it would have been preferable that he should have been visited by a welfare officer was that he was visited by an Army doctor, who would have expected to examine him if he had been available. On 18th January, the medical officer called at Private Rumsby's home, and learned from his mother that he was out with his father. In view of this the doctor left the appropriate form, with instructions—not to the parents, but to the soldier—that lie should return to his unit. The father wrote to the military convalescent depot on 19th January, saying that he was prepared for his son to go into a local hospital, but a reply was sent from the military convalescent depot that he would be given any necessary treatment at the military convalescent depot, which had a special department for cases of this description. Eventually, on 30th January, the father wrote again saying that he would bring Private Rumsby back, probably on 5th February, provided that the depot would send him a free railway warrant, so that he could accompany his son. He was told that his return rail fare would be paid on arrival. That was on 2nd February. Private Rumsby did not return on 5th February. The military convalescent depot wrote again, on 6th February, to Mr. Rumsby, with a request that he should bring his son back, and offering to send the money for his fare, if he would indicate the amount.
On 8th February another medical officer visited the home, and again found him out. The officer was informed by Mrs. Rumsby that he was out rabbiting, and the officer said that if he was fit to do that he was fit to travel. The weather was rather cold with a heavy drizzle. The officer said that every effort should be made to get him back to the depot, and he left written orders for him to return immediately. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the depot?"] In Bedford, and he lived in Suffolk. The unit to which he was ordered to return was a military convalescent depot, specially qualified to round off the treatment that he had had in the two military hospitals. It was not an infantry unit, or anything like that. The second interview to which I have referred was only two days before

my hon. Friend addressed his Question to the Secretary of State, when my right hon. Friend admitted that his information was not fully established. Five or six days after the Question was addressed, further information was received, and it transpired that over the telephone the words "out rabbiting" had been unintentionally converted into "shooting rabbits" the expression used by my right hon. Friend, and I should like to express his regret for any erroneous impression that may have been caused. The next day, 9th February, Mr. Rumsby wrote saying that the fare was 16s. 6d., and on 12th February the money was sent, with a letter from the commanding officer of the military convalescent depot at Bedford, expressing the hope that Mr. Rumsby would either bring his son back or let him report for treatment at a hospital. All this happened before my hon. Friend asked his Question on 13th February, and I hope it disposes of the request that he then made, that this young soldier should be given proper attention and attendance to enable him to get back to his military depot.
Private Rumsby's father did not take him to the local hospital, as he had expressed his willingness to do, nor was Private Rumsby present on the two occasions when medical officers called to see him. Eventually he was brought back by his father, on 16th February, and the next day he was sent for further examination to a military hospital, from which he was discharged on 28th February. As my hon. Friend has indicated, he is now to be discharged on medical grounds. I am not in a position to give further details at this juncture. As regards pension, my hon. Friend knows that that is a matter for the Ministry of Pensions. There is no dispute by the War Department that he received some sort of injury on 17th November, and that, no doubt, will be a relevant factor when the matter is considered. Although I regret very much this unfortunate accident. I think I have made it clear that everything was done which could be expected towards facilitating this young soldier's recovery.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I have listened to this case with a certain amount of dismay at the treatment given to this young man and his parents. From the facts, which are not disputed, it seems


that the Department are lucky that they are not dealing with a tragedy very much deeper. This young man might have been found frozen to death. One does not deny that the Financial Secretary is efficient, courteous, and considerate in dealing with all cases, but the Financial Secretary starts off with the assumption that the individual who corn-plains is in the wrong and the hon. and learned Gentleman is determined to defend the line he has taken up, no matter what reason may be applied. A certain amount of cynicism has been used in this case where a very deserving young man has been shamefully treated. One of the facts which have been disclosed is that when he was taken to hospital and examined he had a complete loss of memory. There is nothing to account for why the young man was discharged from hospital if he had that concussion in the head, or for the fact that no note was ever sent requesting the parents to take him to his home or stating that he would be given some form of conveyance to take him home. Then we discover this casual method of going to the home when the young man could not be found there. He might be perfectly fit to go out and yet not to undertake a long journey. Therefore, if the medical man found that the boy was not at home, he should have been prepared to make an appointment and return to carry out some sort of examination in the home of the boy.
It must not be assumed that every soldier who complains is necessarily trying to evade service. There are many who make complaints which are not genuine, but that must not be taken as the general rule. I am worried about this. I remember a young man who was found dead one morning at an armament works in Glasgow with his gun discharged. Neither the wife nor any representative of the family was allowed at the inquiry. It was decided on no evidence that the boy

loaded the gun himself and killed himself. His wife was ruled out from receiving a pension. The wife has seen no evidence to this day as to what took place at that inquiry. The decision at an inquiry may have an effect on whether a pension is payable or not, and therefore the evidence at an inquiry should be disclosed. When the young man was sent for to return to the hospital and it was found that he could not travel by himself, if the father required to bring him back to the hospital surely there is first-class evidence that there was something wrong with the boy, and a medical examination should have taken place at the boy's home to ascertain in what condition he was and whether he was capable of travelling.
We can only hope that we profit by these mistakes so that other persons will not suffer in the same way. I make no complaint in this case about the pension. I submit that there is need for an inquiry into these cases. There are cases in the Air Force and the Navy where men have' been regarded as scheming to evade service when there has been something seriously wrong with them, and they have been to hospital and have had operations. The medical people in the services should be warned to give the greatest care in these cases. In my estimation there was the gravest cause for suspicion that the boy in this case was not given the proper treatment. Such cases cause bitterness in the home. It causes bitterness that after a man has given his services when the country is in danger, he should be treated in this shocking manner. I hope the parents will get a very handsome apology for such treatment of their boy. We can compliment ourselves that he was discovered before he was a corpse.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Four Minutes to Ten o' Clock.